On Educational Inclusion: Meanings, History, Issues and International Perspectives 036736123X, 9780367361235

Citation preview

A timely, unique, and important book . . . that pulls together perspectives of many experts in the field of special education in order to examine the potential benefits and negative consequences of such inclusion. It makes the case for not only maintaining special education but strengthening it through understanding the complex nature of this work, ensuring a strong base of scientific evidence, and carefully evaluating outcomes. —Garry Hornby, Emeritus Professor of Education, Plymouth University, UK We finally have a comprehensive view of the thorniest of issues surrounding inclu­ sion and how our leaders in the field capture its complexities with clarity, command of the facts, and concern for how to ensure that special, individualized education is obtainable for students with disabilities. If you are concerned about the future of special education, you must read this volume. Get ready to think more clearly about educational inclusion. —Melody Tankersley, Interim Senior Vice President and Provost, Kent State University, USA Useful for teachers, parents, educators, and psychologists who want to achieve an effective answer to the special needs of children. —Santo F. Di Nuovo, Professor of Psychology, University of Catania, Italy, and President of the Italian Association of Psychology

ON EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION

Combining examination of policy with primary research and analysis of up-to-date literature, On Inclusive Education explores the various interpretations of inclusion, its history in education, and a range of its applications internationally. With an international complement of authors, this book features detailed yet accessible chapters on a range of topics, including inclusion in law; academically gifted students; students with severe, sensory, and multiple impairments; and case studies from Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation. The book also examines the impact of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—and Article 24 in particular—and the likely legacies and future implications of recent inclusion movements. For postgraduate students and academics researching in the field of inclusive education, and also for school administrators and policy makers, On Inclusive Education is an essential resource. James M. Kauffman is Professor Emeritus of Education at the University of Virginia, USA. His many publications include articles and book chapters related to inclusion of students with disabilities in general education. He has been a teacher in both special and general education.

Connecting Research with Practice in Special and Inclusive Education Series edited by Philip Garner

This new series represents a commitment to supporting the emergence of applied research in special and inclusive education. It comprises an authoritative collection of books that examine in depth the key issues being experienced in the field, both currently and into the future. These have been selected to illustrate both national and international dimensions of a chosen theme in special and inclusive education. Each book has been commissioned from leading writers, each of whom has substantial experience in his/her topic and who is also recognized for his/her capacity to connect a body of systematic evidence to the needs of a practitioner audience. Authors contributing to the series are often practitioners or practitioner-researchers themselves. On Educational Inclusion Meanings, History, Issues and International Perspectives Edited by James M. Kauffman For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ConnectingResearch-with-Practice-in-Special-and-Inclusive-Education/book-series/CRPSIE

ON EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION Meanings, History, Issues and International Perspectives

Edited by James M. Kauffman

First edition published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, James M. Kauffman; individual chapters, the contributors The right of James M. Kauffman to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-36123-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-36124-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-34403-9 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

CONTENTS

Author biographies Series editor’s foreword Foreword Preface

ix xiii xvi xix

1

Definitions and other issues James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

2

Inclusion as idea and its justification in law Jean B. Crockett

3

The inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in general education environments Brian R. Barber and Andrew L.Wiley

46

A science of instruction and its implications for students with disabilities Justin T. Cooper,Terrance M. Scott, and Todd Whitney

67

4

5

Tiered systems and inclusion: potential benefits, clarifications, and considerations Kathleen Lynne Lane, Mark Matthew Buckman,Wendy Peia Oakes, and Holly Menzies

1 25

85

viii Contents

6

Disproportionality and inclusion Adrienne D.Woods,Yangyang Wang, and Paul L. Morgan

107

7

An examination of highly cited research on inclusion Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

130

8

Inclusion and students with severe, sensory, and multiple impairments Jason C.Travers, Heather J. Forbes, Jenee Vickers Johnson, and Kevin M. Ayres

9

160

Inclusion of academically advanced (gifted) students Carolyn M. Callahan, Jonathan A. Plucker, Stuart Gluck, and Carlos Rodriguez

176

10

Inclusion, governments, and nongovernmental organizations Mitchell L.Yell and David F. Bateman

195

11

The impact of Article 24 of the CRPD on special and inclusive education in Germany, Portugal, the Russian federation, and the Netherlands Dimitris Anastasiou, Marion Felder, Luís Augusto De Miranda Correia,Alexey Shemanov, Inge Zweers, and Bernd Ahrbeck

12

Index

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement James M. Kauffman, Daniel P. Hallahan, Timothy J. Landrum, and Carl R. Smith

216

249

266

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Bernd Ahrbeck, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychoanalytic Pedagogy at the International

Psychoanalytical University (IPU-Berlin); he previously taught at Humboldt Uni­ versity, Berlin. Dimitris Anastasiou, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Special Education, South­ ern Illinois University, Carbondale. His publications include disability rights and policy, comparative special education, and educational interventions in reading and writing. Kevin M. Ayres, Ph.D., BCBA-D, is a professor in special education and co-

director of the Center for Autism and Behavioral Education Research, University of Georgia. Jeanmarie Badar, Ph.D., is teacher of a second grade class in general education in which students with disabilities are included. She previously taught special educa­ tion for 25 years. Brian R. Barber, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Special Education, Kent State University. He was a teacher and school administrator of programs for special edu­ cation students for eight years. David F. Bateman, Ph.D., is a former teacher as well as a former due process hear­

ing officer. He is currently a Professor at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania. Mark Buckman, M.S.Ed., is a doctoral student in the Department of Special Edu­ cation at the University of Kansas and former special education teacher. His work

x

Author biographies

focuses on supporting schools in designing, implementing, and evaluating Compre­ hensive, Integrated, Ci3T education. Carolyn M. Callahan, Ph.D., is Commonwealth Professor of Education, Univer­

sity of Virginia; Co-Principal Investigator, National Center for Research in Gifted Education; and Distinguished Scholar, National Association for Gifted Children. Bryan G. Cook, Ph.D., is Professor, Special Education Program, Curry School of

Education and Human Development, University of Virginia. He has been Presi­ dent of CEC’s Division for Research and co-edits Behavioral Disorders. Lysandra Cook, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Special Education Program, Curry School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia. Her schol­ arship interests include translation of research to practice in special education. Justin T. Cooper, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Learning and Behavioral Disor­

ders at the University of Louisville. He is a former special education teacher and past President of CEC’s Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Luís Augusto De Miranda Correia, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Education, University of Minho, Portugal. His many publications include articles, chapters, and books in special education. Jean B. Crockett, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Education at the University of

Florida. Prior to working in higher education, she was a teacher and administrator in both general and special education. Marion Felder, Ph.D., is Professor, University of Applied Sciences, Koblenz, Ger­

many. Her work includes research on inclusion and rehabilitation. Heather J. Forbes, CCC-SLP, BCBA, is a doctoral student in special education,

University of Kansas. She is a certified speech-language pathologist and boardcertified behavior analyst who previously consulted and taught in public schools. Stuart Gluck, Ph.D., is Director of Institutional Research at the Johns Hopkins

University Center for Talented Youth (CTY) and a Research Fellow in the Depart­ ment of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University. Daniel P. Hallahan, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Education, University of

Virginia. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Florida. Jenee Vickers Johnson, M.Ed., BCBA, is a doctoral student, University of Kansas, studying instructional design and technology. She previously taught students with low incidence disabilities in elementary and early childhood settings.

Author biographies

xi

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D., is Professor Emeritus of Education, University of Vir­

ginia. Before entering higher education, he was a teacher in both general and spe­ cial education. Timothy J. Landrum, Ph.D., is Professor of Special Education, University of Lou­

isville, and Interim Associate Dean for Research and Innovation in the College of Education. Kathleen Lynne Lane, Ph.D., BCBA, CF-L1 is Professor, Department of Special

Education, University of Kansas and Associate Vice Chancellor for Research. Dr. Lane’s research interests focus on designing, implementing, and evaluating compre­ hensive, integrated, three-tiered (Ci3T) models of prevention. Edwin W. Martin, Jr., Ph.D., was the nation’s first Assistant Secretary of Education for special education. He also taught at University of Alabama, Harvard Graduate School of Education, and Columbia University’s Teachers College. Holly Menzies, Ph.D., is Professor of Special Education, California State University,

Los Angeles. Paul L. Morgan, Ph.D., is Professor of Education, Department of Education Policy Studies, and Director of Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Educational Disparities Research. Wendy P. Oakes, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University and a former special education teacher. Her research and teaching focus on promoting educational outcomes for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Jonathan Plucker, Ph.D., is the Julian C. Stanley Professor of Talent Development

at Johns Hopkins University. He is the current president of the National Associa­ tion for Gifted Children. Carlos Rodriguez, Ph.D., has been at the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth

for 19 years. He has administered programs and developed philosophy and humani­ ties curriculum for academically talented students. Terrance M. Scott, Ph.D., is Professor and Distinguished University Scholar and Director of the Center for Academic and Behavioral Research in Schools, Univer­ sity of Louisville. Alexey Shemanov, Ph.D. (in Neuropharmacology, 1983), D.Sci. (in Philosophy of Culture, 2009), is the leading researcher at the Inclusive Education Problems Insti­ tute, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education.

xii

Author biographies

Carl R. Smith, Ph.D., has spent most of his professional career working on issues

related to serving students with emotional or behavioral disorders. He is Professor Emeritus, Iowa State University’s School of Education. Jason C. Travers, Ph.D., BCBA-D, is Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Kansas where he coordinates graduate training programs focused on the education and treatment of individuals with autism. He is a former public school special educator. Yangyang Wang, M.A., is a doctoral student at Pennsylvania State University and a

research assistant for the Center for Educational Disparities Research at Penn State. Todd Whitney, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Special Education, University of

Louisville. He previously was a special education teacher of students with learning and behavior disorders. Andrew Wiley, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Special Education at Kent State University. His research and teaching is focused on special education for students with high-incidence disabilities. Adrienne D. Woods, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral scholar with the Center for Educa­

tional Disparities Research at Pennsylvania State University. She researches devel­ opmental and academic trajectories of students at risk for educational inequities, including children with disabilities. Mitchell L. Yell, Ph.D., is the Fred and Francis Lester Palmetto Chair in Teacher

Education and Professor in Special Education, University of South Carolina. Prior to working in higher education, Dr.Yell was a special education teacher for 14 years. Inge Zweers, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral researcher in data-driven decision making

in education. Her Ph.D. project and a previous postdoctoral project focused on students with social-emotional and behavioral difficulties in general and special education.

SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD

A significant movement in both academic research and professional practice in schools and other educational settings has been increasingly apparent over the last 20 or more years.The challenge of establishing meaningful links between research activity (in its widest sense) and what goes on in schools has become an important aspect in the training and professional development of all those involved in educa­ tion and related services. Several reasons are apparent for the emergence of research approaches in which evidence is systematically gathered to add useful knowledge and insight that can be applied in classrooms, whole schools, and the education system at large. This action is apparent in most national contexts and represents a global movement toward securing an evidence base for professional practice. Its application in special and inclusive education is especially widespread and can be exemplified in most key areas of educational development, including identification and assessment, curriculum interventions, teaching approaches, managing social behavior of students, school organisation and improvement, professional develop­ ment, and leadership. These and other aspects of special and inclusive education have seen a collaborative quest by researchers and practitioners to maximize their knowledge and skill capital to provide outputs that are transferable to everyday schools and classrooms. Such an effort is very much in response to a contemporary need. Special and inclusive education are integral components of general education systems; indeed, they should be more properly regarded as a fully embedded element of systemwide provision. And yet there remain ongoing challenges, alongside opportunities, to be addressed, and these are as apparent within individual countries as they are in a global context. Thus, educationalists need to address the considerable planning, resourcing, and intervention matters relating to an increasingly diverse commu­ nity of learners, whose needs are often complex.This is being attempted at a time of significant economic and political upheaval, resulting in resource shortfalls and

xiv

Series editor’s foreword

demands by governments and the general population for greater accountability by schools. These contexts and challenges are recognized by nasen, who are partners with Routledge in this Series initiative. The Series itself has an immediate challenge—notably that of the terminology that is adopted in its title.Within this, the “debate” regarding the vital importance of inclusion of all learners is less contentious. Rightly, there is widespread recognition that all children, young people, and adults of difference should have the capacity to function as members of local, national, and regional communities—whether cultural, social, and economic.At the outset, therefore, the concept of “inclusion” is one that is fully embedded and celebrated within the volumes that will comprise this series. It is also recognized that, notwithstanding these incontrovertible rights, there have been conceptual tensions and deflections resulting from the terminology used to describe populations of learners who experience barriers in accessing education. This has been apparent for over 30 or more years now, with an attendant range of terms being used to describe such learners.The Series acknowledges this. It adopts the generic term special alongside inclusive education to capture the essence of those professional settings and stakeholders who provide essential inputs in a systemic and collaborative effort to secure more embedded and lifelong inclusion for all. This stance, and its explanatory, will not find favor with all. Nor should it. The path­ way toward more substantive and meaningful inclusion will always present oppor­ tunities to highlight conceptual and operational drawbacks, inconsistencies, and opportunities.This is the nature of an ethical, social, and educational journey—of which the route to a more inclusive state is perhaps one of the signal contemporary challenges for the global community. Moreover, this understanding comes with an awareness—which needs reinforcement in all our endeavors—that “inclusion” is not so much a “place” but, rather, a state of mind. The Series itself seeks to contribute to this journey by a commitment to sup­ porting the emergence of applied research in special and inclusive education by providing a means by which researchers and practitioners can have access to an authoritative collection of books that examine in depth the key issues being expe­ rienced in the field, both currently and in the future. It thus comprises a selection of books that have been commissioned from leading writers who have substantial experience in their topic and who are also recognized for their capacity to con­ nect a body of systematic evidence to the needs of a practitioner audience. In these terms, ideas, projections, and “blue sky thinking” are viewed as ingredients that support professional development in conjunction with evidence-based accounts of effective interventions and supports for all learners. Many authors in the Series, who have been selected to illustrate both national and international dimensions of a chosen theme in special and inclusive educa­ tion, are practitioners or practitioner-researchers themselves. This ensures that the collection of books in the Series is accessible to its intended range of professional stakeholders, providing credible and trustworthy resources and supporting national and international efforts in the field of special and inclusive education.

Series editor’s foreword

xv

Books in the Series, whether single-authored or edited collections, will repre­ sent my ambition to celebrate a “freedom to think,” to be a polemicist, alongside a requirement to demonstrate that, like educational research itself, such an approach has a single intention: To shine a stronger light on ways in which marginalized learners can thrive in all aspect of their lives. I have known Jim Kauffman for many years and have recognized his corpus work for considerably longer: I recall his name being widely quoted during my master’s-level studies during the mid-1980s. His was a voice of intellect, reason, and challenge at a time of significant change in the way that national systems and individual schools sought to resolve dilemmas prompted by educational and social changes in the way that learners who experienced barriers to their progress were perceived and supported. Subsequently I had the professionally rewarding experi­ ence of collaborating with him and in engaging in vibrant conversation regarding the various paradoxes and continuities that prevailed in our field. Jim Kauffman thus seemed to be an obvious nomination to contribute to the Series at its inception. As Series Editor, I wanted to identify a potential vehicle to signal the frequently overlooked notion that the concept of “theory into practice” can result in a diminution of the importance of personal reflection, interpretation and judgement. In On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues, and international perspectives, Jim has collected a set of chapters from contributors who have consider­ able standing in their field. Importantly, their work illustrates themes in special and inclusive education that are prevailing well into the 21st century. It is absolutely correct that practitioners remain exposed to the intellectual and operational issues that are raised by such topics. In doing this, the risks of disengagement from reflec­ tive thinking should be acknowledged. This book, and the Series it represents, is about an opportunity:To stimulate thinking around the major themes in special and inclusive education, with an accompanying commitment to act to enable progress on this journey: Theory into practice. As Series Editor, my thanks should be recorded to all its authors, whether those of entire books or edited collections or those contributors of individual chapters. Your efforts, whilst sometimes difficult to quantify, will benefit current and future stakeholders in special and inclusive education, whatever their role might be. Finally, my gratitude also to Alison Foyle (Senior Publisher, Routledge Education) and Adam Boddison (Chief Executive, nasen) whose enthusiasm and commitment to this project have been essential to its realization. Professor Philip Garner Series Editor Brunel University London

FOREWORD

It is hard for me, reflecting on 65 years of speech pathology/special education practice, to imagine a more central issue than the subject of this book in its various facets. Jim Kauffman and his colleagues are among the most distinguished inter­ national scholars and their perspectives are part of the history we must remember and learn from. In 1965, the US Office of Education (USOE) had a Division of Handicapped Children and Youth, which administered grants to institutions of higher education for financial aid to students studying various special education categories. These were generally focused on persons with a specific disability (e.g., deafness, mental retardation, emotional disturbance). Today’s field of professionals is built on that foundation and its evolution, including additions during the 1960s-70s of “children with Specific Learning Disabilities,” children who are “Deaf and Blind,” “children with Multiple and Severe Disabilities,” “children with Autism,” etc. Programs sup­ porting Special Education Research and Development and “Captioned Films for the Deaf ” were also parts of the Division. In 1966, the Office of Education was reorganized, and the Division was dissolved. Its parts were spread to other organizations aimed at “General Edu­ cation.”The personnel program and its funding was to be merged into the Edu­ cational Professionals Training Program. The Division, established by President Kennedy and first headed by Dr. Samuel Kirk of the University of Illinois, was no more.* The following spring, the US House of Representatives created a special “Ad hoc Subcommittee on the Handicapped,” a historic first. US Representative Hugh L. Carey (D-NY) chaired that subcommittee (he also later became Governor of New York State). I was privileged to serve as Director of that subcommittee. My work was informed, in part, by the four months I had spent in 1965 as an expertconsultant to the recently dissolved Division in USOE.

Foreword

xvii

The subject of “mainstreaming” (now “inclusion”) became a subject of discussion.The USOE official testifying, Dr. Donald Bigelow, argued that the special edu­ cation scholarship funding should be absorbed by the general education scholarship funding, promoting “mainstreaming.”Witnesses for special education and disability groups opposed that, fearing the historic loss of funding unless special education and disabilities were “categorically” earmarked. Chairman Carey put it succinctly to Dr. Bigelow: “I am afraid the handicapped [the term then used for disabilities] will drown in that mainstream.” The federal policy grew from 1966 through 1975. The Education of All Handi­ capped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94–142) specifically identified needs and shaped legislation and policy to meet the needs that parents, educators, and physi­ cians identified. The Rubella (German measles) epidemic of 1964–65 had led to the birth of thousands of deaf-blind and handicapped children; the identification of children with Learning Disabilities was just beginning. In working on the team drafting EAHCA (PL 94–142), we were well aware of the historic isolation and segregation of children and adults with disabilities. We also were experiencing successes, albeit with some limitations, with providing specially designed instruction for children with disabilities. For the first time, many parents told us their children were benefitting from real instruction, not just “kindly babysitting” or being excluded entirely. No state, even those with mandatory edu­ cation laws, was able to say it was educating all its children. In fact, there were no accurate figures of how many children needed special education. We had neither state nor federal counts that we knew were accurate. To meet the challenge of providing appropriate education for all children with disabilities, the law included a “child-find” feature. That is, this feature of the law was designed by professionals to require states and school districts to find and report children in need of special education and related services such as speech-language therapy, physical and occupational therapies, or counseling. Recognizing that unnecessary separation was common, the law required that the local school personnel develop a specific “Individual Education Plan” (IEP), share it and discuss it with the child’s parents, and evaluate progress toward its goals at least annually. The law also required a continuum of educational placements designed to fit each child’s needs, and it called for education to be with children without handicaps “WHENEVER APPROPRIATE.” I don’t need to point out that some children succeeded in a regular classroom with some specified instruction; some prospered in small-group programs; and some succeeded well in special schools, both public and private. Parents and teach­ ers together chose special settings (environments) in many cases. Children were not forced into separate schools, but parents and students themselves sometimes chose special school environments for the educational and social benefits they offered. Students often felt isolated and alone (e.g., the only kid using a wheelchair) in general education environments and felt more attachment in schools or classrooms where they could identify with others facing the same or similar predicaments. Fur­ thermore, special school graduates have often gone on to post secondary education

xviii

Foreword

at a higher rate than those from public schools nearby. Students with learning dis­ abilities often choose to go to Landmark College, which makes serving this popula­ tion its specialty. Today, this book addresses these issues, which I have witnessed for 65 years.The goal we wrote into law was for specially designed instruction, evaluated regularly. Placing children in an all-or-none fashion (e.g., all in separate or all in inclusive environments) fails the legal and educational goals of “appropriate” education being determined by an individualized educational plan. No book topic could be more relevant to the future success of children with disabilities requiring special education and related services. Good programs exist in a variety of settings. Placement is not a goal in itself.The first promise of the law is an appropriate education, and placement must be in response to informed planning of educators, not the preferences or mandates of educators or others. by Edwin W. Martin, Jr.

Note * The evolution of special education from a division in a bureau of education to a bureau in an office of education (BEH) to an office (OSERS) in a department of education (DOE) is itself a story of increasing visibility and importance of special education.

Editor’s note For more on the history of special education law in the USA, the following book is highly recommended: Martin, E.W. Jr. (2013). Breakthrough: Federal special education legislation 1965–1981. Sarasota, FL: Bardolf.

PREFACE

This book is not a set of arguments against the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education. Nor is it an attempt to make the case for these students’ exclu­ sion from general education. Rather, it is thoughtful consideration of the limits of including all students in general education, some of the meanings of the term inclusion, and the potential benefits as well as the corruptions and faults of the idea. People everywhere must try to understand what appropriate, meaningful inclu­ sion of students with disabilities in a general system of education entails. Under­ standing just what inclusion means is difficult, for the word is often only vaguely defined or not defined at all.Without a clear definition and understanding of what inclusion means, particularly for various kinds of disabilities and in various coun­ tries’ systems of public and private education, educators are likely to make avoidable mistakes People may advocate something they have considered poorly, and they may come to regret that advocacy. Perhaps advocacy for humane and thoughtful inclusion will be lost for a signifi­ cant period.The idea that placement in general education is always best and appro­ priate for literally all children, as well as the misconception that disabilities are like any other kind of diversity, are appealing in some ways. On the surface, they seem to represent acceptance of and equity for exceptional children. However, these ideas are extremely likely to end up in history’s dustbin, although perhaps not before a period in which they are dominant. Emphasis on place and misunderstanding of diversities lead inevitably to a simplistic ideology. Before getting to the more specific topic of this book—educational inclusion—it is necessary to consider the general idea of inclusion more carefully. Of necessity, including people in any activity involves human and ecological diversities. How­ ever, this book is about a particular human diversity that is critically important for teachers and the ecology of schools. Some people are tempted to lump all kinds of diversity together for education, as if all are the same or have the same implications

xx

Preface

for individuals and activities.That is, some people, including some educators, seem not to understand the diversities of characteristics and places. Understanding the differences in diversities is especially important for inclusion of particular individu­ als in specific activities. Just why people equate diversity in abilities (especially in abilities related to instruction or education) with diversity in things like skin color, nationality, reli­ gion, heritage, or ancestry remains something of a mystery. Especially peculiar is the apparent assumption of some proponents of full (complete, total, invariant) inclusion in education that there is no more variability or diversity among the edu­ cational needs of children with disabilities than among their diversities in color and ancestry or that all diversities require the same response—acceptance and inclusion in whatever activity is in question. However, the nature and amount of diversity are not irrelevant or trivial regardless of the activity. Considering the types, combina­ tions, and severities of disabilities (never mind differences in chronological age and other variations), there is enormous diversity among children, youths, and adults with disabilities and where they learn best. Moreover, such diversity of disabilities demands diversity in educational practices and environments. Any legislation or social policy regarding disability related to education, therefore, must be crafted carefully so as not to abridge the rights of some while giving appropriate oppor­ tunities to all. Especially troubling is communication about civil rights, as if diversity of one kind has the same implications for education (and all other matters) as any other kind of diversity. Civil rights laws applying to color or ancestry do not apply to civil rights having to do with abilities, simply because abilities and color or ancestry (and many other diversities we could name) are not similar in their implications for teaching.The idea that separate is inherently unequal in education applies to some forms of diversity but not to all diversities. Besides, the always separate education involving color or ancestry had nothing to do with disabilities and was created intentionally to give some children a lesser education based on their color alone. However, the special and sometimes separate education of children with disabilities was created to give some children more appropriate education based on their edu­ cational needs without regard to their color or ancestry.The basic aim in both cases is equal civil rights, but the way to achieve that equality in the case of color dif­ ferences is the same education regardless of color; in the case of ability differences, equality is to be achieved by different, special education. Many diversities have nothing to do with abilities, particularly learning abilities. But abilities (including both disabilities and extraordinary abilities) certainly are related to instruction and to the societal roles individuals can and should fill. Not to recognize these facts regarding differences in the nature and implications of vari­ ous diversities for education related to them is to advocate a remarkably dystopian society. Yet, in their zeal to achieve total bodily inclusion of all individuals with dis­ abilities in society, including all systems of public education, some are apparently willing to celebrate disabilities themselves as a part of personhood and to celebrate

Preface

xxi

the end of special education. Both (disabilities and the end of special education) are seen by these advocates as desirable because, it is supposed, then people with disabilities will not be treated as if their differences are less desirable than “nor­ mal.” Furthermore, they argue, no education will be seen as atypical because all students will be given whatever educational resources they need. Individuals’ dis­ abilities should be considered part of their identities that cannot be separated from them, and so neither individuals nor their disabilities should be seen as something to be eliminated or prevented. Preventing a disability is preventing the person with it, they argue.Therefore, so the argument goes, to ignore or destroy a person’s identity as disabled is to erase that person’s life experience. Person and disability are melded, such that one is the other, and special education is therefore seen as an insult. Special education is considered insulting by such advocates of inclusion because, from their point of view, all diversity should be accepted as unremark­ able.The diversity we call “disability” should not require an extraordinary response. Rather, they suggest, the response should be part of the normal warp and woof of the social fabric, something unremarkable.They believe that an ordinary aspect of educators’ responsibility should be making general education appropriate for all students. In some societies of the past, such melding of person and disability resulted in deaths of people with disabilities because they were not considered valuable or worthy of protection, respect, and love as people aside from their disabilities. Those societies that killed people with disabilities (who were sometimes called “useless eaters”) are now considered decidedly dystopian. In those societies, chil­ dren with disabilities were not deserving of an extraordinary response from educa­ tors. If those with disabilities could not profit from general education, then they deserved nothing. A temptation is concluding that the problem in those dystopian societies was that general education did not accommodate diversity in ways that ours will. An assumption is that our social structure and education system need reforms that will make general education so supple, differentiated, and competent in dealing with all diversity that it (general education) meets the needs of all students, bar none. Although no such society or general education system exists in the world today, the assumption is that we can create one that does. Nevertheless, serious questions must be asked about a society that treats disabili­ ties as “no big deal” or that sees disabilities as nothing to be regretted, actually as “gifts,” nothing to be prevented if possible, just normal diversity or even things to be loved, treasured, appreciated, and embraced because the people who have them are to be loved, treasured, appreciated, and embraced and they cannot be separated from their disabilities.This attitude toward disability seems extremely likely to lead toward an even more dystopian society. Very likely, it will become a society in which extraordinary education for anyone is neither expected nor required by law because general education is considered appropriate for all students. In addition, it is likely to become a society in which people are free to create disabilities and to destroy abilities as they wish, as long as they do not kill an individual.

xxii

Preface

Destruction is much easier than creation of most of the things we want. Destruc­ tion is much harder than creation of things we do not want. For example, it is easier to destroy a person’s ability to play the piano than to teach someone to play it: Destruction of any ability can be quick, simple, and cheap. However, it is harder to create a vaccine effective in preventing a disease than to spread infection of that disease: Spreading disease is easy and requires comparatively little effort or money. Creating a vaccine that effectively prevents a disease takes a lot more time, effort, and money.The histories of measles and poliomyelitis, with their complications and resulting disabilities in some cases, as well as invention of vaccines to prevent them and attitudes toward vaccination, are particularly noteworthy. We can ignore, create, or even accommodate disabilities of many kinds compara­ tively easily, but reversing or preventing them successfully is far more difficult. Person­ ally, I do not see disabilities as things we should want, but I do think we should want the people who have them.To me, disability is unfortunate, not good fortune. I value ability more than disability and inability. If that results in my being called an “ableist,” so be it. All teachers worthy of the label (teacher) are ableists in the sense of valuing ability more than inability or disability. As teachers, we value the abilities more than disabilities or inabilities of all students. Certainly, disabilities are to be acknowledged, and people with them are to be loved and accepted, encouraged and habilitated.Yet, our acceptance and love of people, regardless of their age or developmental level, also means we will try to enhance their abilities, to help them become able to do something they can’t now, to become something they are not yet.This is something all good parents do with all their children. It is something all good teachers do with all their students.And, in this case, all does, indeed, mean each and every, no exceptions. Special education is intended to enable people with disabilities to accomplish more and to create more opportunities for themselves as well as others. Reversal and prevention of disability when possible is humane. Not caring whether disability occurs, as well as deliberately creating it, is inhumane. Persons and their abilities and disabilities are not identities in the mathematical sense. Rather, the mathematical term intersecting sets describes disabilities and persons. It is okay to deliberately create a person, but it is not okay to create a disability on purpose. Getting rid of a dis­ ability is a good thing when we can do it, but getting rid of a person, whether that person has a disability or not, is not only despicable but evil. Separating persons from their characteristics is sometimes a difficult mental exercise, whether the characteristic has to do with disability, other behavior, or idea. For example, it is often hard to separate _____ (the person) from _____ (his or her behavior). This is true whether it’s Tom, who bullies; Tim, who defends the bul­ lied; Mary, who needs intensive supports because she has intellectual disabilities; or Missy, whose intellectual ability is far more advanced than typical. It is true regard­ less whether the second _____ is behavior or another characteristic. Furthermore, the more pronounced or extreme that behavior or other characteristic of a person, the more difficult it is likely to be to separate person and characteristic, although distinguishing one from the other is something we must try to do if we are to treat people humanely.

Preface

xxiii

Labels for people and their characteristics are essential, and we do without accu­ rate labels at great risk of the devolution of our linguistic felicity, ideas, and com­ petencies.The better developed our line of work, the more accurate and the more specific our labels become. Nevertheless, a label (e.g., child, convict, adult woman, American, extremist, old man, ASD, disabled, differently abled, ableist, conserva­ tive, athlete, constructivist, behaviorist, Democrat, bureaucrat, and so on almost ad infinitum) can easily lead us to overgeneralizations or misconceptions about a person to whom the label rightly applies. Furthermore, the more general and less specific the label, the more likely this is to happen, simply because it applies to a greater number of cases. As many keen observers of contemporary societies have noted, a major problem of today’s social media and some other technologies is increasing failure to see the person, the basic humanity of those who differ from us in a given way. This fail­ ure to see the person may be true not only as it applies to disabilities but also as it applies to those holding ideas about disabilities that are different from our own. Moreover, social media seem to thrive on more general labels for individuals, on keeping things as unfocused as possible, on precluding the clear and sharp picture of an individual required for understanding the person. These comments about how disability is a distinctive kind of diversity that should not be responded to like others and the importance of separating people from at least some of their characteristics are a backdrop to the matter of inclu­ sion in education. Inclusion in education is decidedly different from inclusion in grocery shopping, attending sports events, walking on the mall, and a variety of other activities that involve no focused instruction. Schooling is a part of life set apart for focused instruction of children and youth. It is not the everyday world of work or community life for any adults other than teachers.Adults who are teachers are expected to provide instruction appropriate to individual students, who may be grouped according to various criteria for purposes of efficiency. How best to meet the instructional needs of individual students, including where they are taught, is a critical issue. Special education was invented as a way of improving the education of students with disabilities.Whether it has so improved lives and whether it continues to do so are critical questions. The reasonable question is not whether special educa­ tion allows students with disabilities to perform educationally like those without disabilities (always, predictably, the finding will then be that special education has failed) but whether students are better off with than without special education. Questions this book explores include whether, why, and how students with disabili­ ties are better off with than without their inclusion in general education, better off with or without alternative placements. Answers must be nuanced, not invariable. But, within even our most nuanced answers lie additional, often difficult questions involving diversity in disabilities, students, teachers, families, curricula, and desired outcomes. The chapters of this book are purposely arranged in logical order. In the first chapter, Badar and I lay the groundwork for some of the previous observations

xxiv

Preface

and the inevitable questions they prompt.We suggest a difference between bodily inclusion and instructional inclusion and conclude that appropriate instructional inclusion is the more important but not always achievable in general education.We also suggest some of the major issues regarding educational inclusion. That leaves many controversial issues to be discussed in more detail. Subsequent chapters take up some of these many issues involving inclusion, regardless of its definition. The history of the matter is the first thing to consider. Where did the idea of inclusion come from, and how has it played out in special education law and policy? Which contemporary ideas about inclusion are consistent with the history of the idea? Crockett addresses these and other aspects of the history of the inclusion movement. The context and instructional demands of inclusion are critical. Furthermore, proposed educational reforms are important. The general education context and the nature and demands of good instruction have to be considered as practical matters of implementing inclusion, as Barber and Wiley illustrate. Evidence-based instruction is essential, and the place of instruction may constrain what instruction is provided and how it is delivered. Cooper et al. describe instruction that is needed for students with disabilities (special instruction, which is the major purpose of special education) and discuss how place might constrain or enhance such instruc­ tion.Tiered education is an example of a reform designed to make more inclusion possible and what tiers do and do not do to facilitate inclusion must be considered. Lane and her colleagues discuss this concern. Additional issues regarding inclusion must be considered: Proportionality and what research tells us. Appropriate, accurate identification of students in various groups for special education and their best placement for given services are essential for achieving social justice. Morgan addresses the problem of how inclusion might be entangled with disproportionality.The Cooks take up another essential consid­ eration:What research tells us (and doesn’t) about inclusion. Research findings are important in making ethical, moral decisions. People must weigh research findings in making defensible decisions about ethical and moral conduct. Two populations deserving particularly careful consideration in plans for inclu­ sion are students with severe and multiple disabilities, particularly sensory disabili­ ties that require special accommodations and those with more severe disabilities on the autism spectrum, and students who are academically advanced, talented, or gifted in particular skills.Travers and his coauthors explore the problems of inclu­ sion of students with a variety of disabilities, and Callahan and her colleagues exam­ ine the questions arising from inclusion of those with extraordinarily high abilities. Inclusion as law and policy do not depend only on the thinking of academics. The roles of government entities and nongovernmental agencies are addressed by Yell and Bateman. Anastasiou and others extend the discussion to international agreements and education systems in countries other than the United States in Chapter 11. Finally, in the last chapter, I and several colleagues try to guess what is likely to happen to special and general education and how inclusion of students with

Preface

xxv

disabilities, variously defined, will be seen by future generations.We speculate about what may happen not only regarding ethical and moral views but also possible changes in law and policy. I am particularly grateful to the other chapter authors for working with me on this project and to Ed Martin for his foreword. I also thank Philip Garner, the series editor, who was especially helpful in making the book become a reality. Project Manager Chris Mathews deserves kudos for seeing all our efforts through various stages. Alex Butterworth and Alison Foyle of Taylor and Francis provided splendid editorial assistance, which I greatly appreciate. JMK Afton,VA October 2019

1 DEFINITIONS AND OTHER ISSUES

James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

The word “inclusion” in its many forms and phrases (e.g., “inclusive,” “inclusion­ ary,”“full inclusion,”“inclusive school,”“inclusionary practices”) and the words and phrases related to it (e.g., “unified sports,” “universal design for learning”) have become “hot button” issues related to various social policies, particularly education policy.The ideas and language have been popularized by many advocates for indi­ viduals with disabilities worldwide, including the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the CRPD; Anastasiou, Gregory, & Kauffman, 2018; see also Anastasiou et al. 2020). In the United States, major aspects of special education for children with disabil­ ities are governed by a federal law typically known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, although it has had other titles).The first requirement of this law is free appropriate public education (FAPE) of all individuals with disabilities. Among other things, the US law calls for placement of students with disabilities (SWD) in the least restrictive environment (LRE), although that LRE must be one in which the student’s individual education plan (IEP) can be implemented. Furthermore, the LRE must be chosen from a full continuum of alternative place­ ments (CAP) that includes, but is not limited to, general (regular) education or any other placement.According to the law, placement decisions must be individualized. Standard or automatic placements dependent on the category or label of the stu­ dent’s primary disability or disability label are proscribed. Our focus in this book is on inclusion in education, not the inclusion of peo­ ple with disabilities in community activities or society more generally. One reason this is important is that inclusion in schooling presents issues not relevant in many other social situations. School is important because of what goes on there, which is distinctively different from what goes on in other social settings. Schools are congregations of individuals for two particular, primary purposes: Teaching and learning. They are societies’ primary social vehicles for teaching skills important

2

James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

for children’s development, especially academic skills for all who can learn them, but also social skills and self-care. Schools address individuals’ needs for learn­ ing to become independent, informed, self-fulfilled, productive citizens.They are created to help all students achieve these things to the maximum extent possible for them as individuals, depending on their age, interests, prior achievement, and needs. Schools are not intended to address students’ needs harum-scarum, regardless of students’ age, interests, or prior achievement. Schools are intended to include children without regard to their color, heritage, weight:height ratio, and other char­ acteristics that have no implications for instruction.The definition and issues related to inclusion of children with disabilities in general education are distinctly different from those regarding such inclusion of other forms of diversity.These differences in instruction have been detailed elsewhere (e.g., Kauffman, Hallahan, Pullen, & Badar, 2018; Pullen & Hallahan, 2015). Nevertheless, some aspects of instruction are the same for all children, in that the instruction must be challenging for the individual (e.g., Endrew, 2017; Kauffman,Wiley, Travers, Badar, & Anastasiou, 2019; see also chapter 10).That is, in its ruling in the Endrew F. case (Endrew, 2017) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that somewhat more than de minimis (i.e., minimum) benefit is insufficient, and free, appropriate public education (FAPE) requires challenging educational objec­ tives, given the individual student’s circumstances. As Crockett details in the next chapter, the concept of LRE is not new, having been part of US education law since 1975. Before it became US law, the related concept of normalization was suggested by Wolfensberger (1972). Normalization meant that treatment of people with disabilities should be “as culturally normative as possible” (Wolfensberger, 1972, p. 28), and that concept set the stage for the legal mandate of LRE (see also Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2019). Here, we merely mention that the history of special education seems to have been dominated by two passionate advocacies of opposite ideas about the placement of children with disabilities.We think people can take almost any proposition and pas­ sionately advocate for it to such an extreme that their advocacy becomes unhelpful, if not counterproductive, even destructive (Kauffman,Anastasiou, Badar, & Hallen­ beck, in press). People appear to have done so in the institutionalization movement of the past, and they may be doing so again in the inclusion movement of the 21st century (Kauffman,Ahrbeck et al., in press). The first of these unhelpful enthusiasms was dominant in the 19th century but continued into the first half of the 20th century.We refer to it as separapassion. This was the passionate belief that (a) effective teaching requires that SWD be placed in a separate special school or class in which a special educator provides instruction designed specifically for that child’s disability, (b) placement in a general education class typically precludes the instruction needed by SWD, and/or (c) special educa­ tion’s improvement can best be achieved by making sure that special education is offered in a separate, dedicated setting.This belief, proposition, or invariant solution to the education and treatment of SWD was promoted by many professionals, who

Definitions and other issues

3

seemed to argue that, in all cases, everyone (children with and without disabilities and their families and communities) was better off when a child with disabilities was placed in an institution or special school or class. The second invariant proposed solution we call inclusiopassion. This passionate belief began in the 1980s and now dominates the thinking of many in the 21st century. It is the passionate belief that (a) free appropriate public education (FAPE) cannot be achieved for any student placed in any setting other than general edu­ cation, (b) inclusion in general education is demanded by the IDEA, and/or (c) special education’s improvement can best be achieved by striving to achieve the full inclusion of all SWD in general education classes. Its misapplication to students with emotional and behavioral disorders has been called FAPE accompli by Brigham, Ahn, Stride, and McKenna (2016) because FAPE was assumed to be possible only if the student was placed in a general education classroom. As we shall see, some would like to make the concepts of LRE and CAP moot by having an invariant placement—general education, regular classroom in the neighborhood school (no options or alternatives). The notion is that all special services—all instruction and related services—will be brought to the student in the general education setting or environment.That this is both possible and desirable is assumed and often asserted as unquestionable. We now see the drawbacks of separapassion and, by the middle of the last cen­ tury, understood the faux necessity of separate environments in all cases. By 1975, federal law recognized the need for LRE and CAP, which included all kinds of educational placements to fully meet the needs of SWD, including their families and communities. Inclusiopassion is merely the mirror image of separapassion, very much as the advocacy of deinstitutionalization of all people with disabilities became the mirror image of the institutionalization of all people with disabilities. Now, we are tempted to claim another, in many ways opposite,“final solution” to dilemmas of placement in the education of those with disabilities—general education in all cases. An understandable but counterproductive tactic is to avoid the inevitable mistakes of human judgement by proscribing all alternatives to bodily inclusion.

Defining inclusion Even in education, “inclusion” is a variable concept, easily misunderstood. For example, Imray and Colley (2017) wrote: educational inclusion despite a constantly changing and liquid definition, has not been achieved in any country under any educational system despite some 30 years of trying. It was no doubt a valiant and laudable attempt to ensure justice and equity but its failure must now be addressed. Inclusion has become a recurring trope of academic writing on education; it is trotted out as an eternal and unarguable truth, but it is neither. It doesn’t work, and it never has worked. (Imray & Colley, 2017, p. 1)

4

James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

Imray and Colley explain that inclusion is a dead idea when it is interpreted to mean placing all students in general education—an idea sometimes called full inclusion. Inclusion, even full inclusion, is decidedly not dead in its less radical forms that put instruction first (see also Osgood, 2005). Of course, the argument that inclusion (of any description or by any definition) is dead has been met with the assertion that it is not (e.g., Slee, 2018), and efforts to make schools more “inclusive” have continued apace (e.g., Causton & TracyBronson, 2015; Hehir & Katzman, 2012; Kaushik, 2019). The issue always has been—and it remains—just what practices actually lead to social justice and what practices, if any, have a patina of social justice but upon deeper inspection are found to result in injustice. Perhaps there is a form or ideology of inclusion so extreme or unrealistic that it turns against itself and causes the exclusion of individuals with disabilities in the activity in which they are to be included (Kauffman, Anastasiou et al., in press). Others may maintain that such extremism is justified and will not become self-destructive but will produce only true and enduring social justice. As we suggested, people might conclude that inclusion of any type is not now and never will become its own worst enemy. Some seem to believe that any criti­ cism of inclusion is more hysterical than logical. Moreover, “inclusion” means, to some, the location of the student’s body—presence in a regular classroom with students who have no disability. In their definition, placement comes first, and instruction plays “second fiddle.” We might call this a habeas corpus definition of inclusion (the Latin meaning of habeas corpus approximates “[we] have the body”). The legal term involves both a person’s body and a body of evidence justifying that person’s arrest and imprisonment. In another chapter in this book, the authors focus on the body of evidence supporting inclusion. However, as we use the words habeas corpus in this chapter, they refer only to the location of a student’s body in a general education classroom. People who focus attention on where the student’s body is argue that the regular or general education classroom is always where students of any description should be placed—in classrooms intended for general public education. For example, Sailor (2009) wrote, “I recommend operating schoolwide RTI [response to inter­ vention] models without having any separate special education classrooms” (p. 123; see also SWIFT Schools, 2019). About two decades earlier, attorney Frank Laski, then president of TASH (the acronym remains, although in 1975 it was founded as the American Association for the Education of the Severely and Profoundly Handi­ capped, or AAESPH), wrote: All children with learning problems, whether they be “special education” students,“at-risk” students, or otherwise regarded as disadvantaged in school­ ing, belong in regular classroom environments. (Laski, 1991, p. 412) Three generations of children subject to LRE are enough. Just as some insti­ tution managers and their organizations—both overt and covert—seek refuge

Definitions and other issues

5

in the continuum and LRE, regional, intermediate unit, and special school administrators and their organizations will continue to defend the traditional and professionally pliable notion of LRE. The continuum is real and repre­ sents the status quo. However, the morass created by it can be avoided in the design and implementation of reformed systems by focusing all placement decisions on the local school and routinely insisting on the home school as an absolute and universal requirement. In terms of placement, the home-school focus renders LRE irrelevant and the continuum moot. (Laski, 1991, p. 413) Laski’s kind of thinking about inclusion has been at the forefront of inclusion rhetoric for a long time. Stainback and Stainback (1991) argued that, just as was found for racial segregation in schools, physically separate education is, in the case of disability as well as in the case of heritage or skin color, inherently unequal edu­ cation.And, in defense of special education, as long as it is practiced when students’ bodies are in the right place, Blackman (1992) wrote: “Place” is the issue . . . There is nothing pervasively wrong with special education. What is being questioned is not the interventions and knowledge that has [sic] been acquired through special education training and research. Rather, what is being challenged is the location where these supports are being pro­ vided to students with disabilities. (p. 29, italics in original) This focus on place or placement of SWD for their education in regular class­ rooms assumes that any teacher or teachers can make a classroom so malleable, sup­ ple, and differentiated that it serves all variations in children’s abilities appropriately. This idea has long historical roots (e.g., Gartner & Lipsky, 1987, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1984, 1991).That goal or idea also has its more contemporary advocates (e.g., Agran et al., 2020; Sailor & McCart, 2014; SWIFT Schools, 2019).This line of argument also begins with the assumption that social justice can be achieved only when all students, regardless of any characteristic they may have (other than chronological age and location of their domicile), must share a common space for their schooling. However, we argue that place is not the issue in achieving social justice for SWD in their education and that something is pervasively wrong with special education when place, not instruction, is the paramount concern. In evaluating special education as habeas corpus, we understand that those who define inclusion as place-based do not ignore instruction altogether. They merely make it secondary. They recommend that we first get the body in the right place, then implement appropriate instruction—assuming that appropriate instruction for all students can be delivered in a single kind of place. Or they seem to assume that we know what to do and are doing it—but in the wrong place. Some advocates of habeas corpus may argue that instruction can only be truly appropriate if it is done in general education, hence instruction anywhere else cannot be entirely appropriate.

6

James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

Others may argue that appropriate instruction is equally important to place, but that argument is disingenuous, simply because one or the other (place or appropri­ ate instruction) must take priority—come first, be more important.The IDEA makes FAPE the priority, with place an important but decidedly secondary consideration. Bateman and Linden (2012), for example, emphasize the order in which decisions about educating children under the IDEA must be made. The IEP must be writ­ ten before the LRE is chosen from a CAP if the spirit and letter of the law are to be honored. Special instruction is by law and logic special education’s priority, not a secondary concern. Placement is by law and logic a secondary concern, not special education’s priority. An alternative to the habeas corpus definition of inclusion exists. Students may be included in schooling and the project of learning (receiving FAPE and a socially just education), even if not all of them are “under the same roof ” or in a regular classroom in a neighborhood school intended to serve most students in a catch­ ment area (e.g., Kauffman,Travers, & Badar, 2020;Warnock, 2005).An instructionbased definition puts appropriate education first and might be called by Latin words proprium instructio, approximating the meaning of appropriate instruction. Our sug­ gestion is that inclusion should be defined as inclusion in appropriate instruction or other activity, not defined as place or placement. Imray and Colley ended their book by writing: We have suggested that inclusion is dead, but we hope also that this book has pointed towards a new beginning: we want inclusion to redefine itself as a living, breathing thing with real value and real purpose. Not just educational inclusion, but real and meaningful social inclusion, not only for those with SLD [severe learning difficulties] and PMLD [profound and multiple learn­ ing difficulties] but maybe also for many, many more for whom the current education system is no longer fit for purpose. Long live inclusion! (Imray & Colley, 2017, p. 102) In other words, the habeas corpus definition of inclusion may not always work to the benefit of all SWD. However, the proprium instructio idea of including individuals of all ages in societal functions that are appropriate for them always benefits SWD. The real question, then, is not whether educational inclusion is always a good and living idea in any sense (it is, in its proprium instructio sense) but how we can best make inclusion by any definition serve the interests of all SWD and other students in schools. Inclusion defined as proprium instructio always makes sense, but bodily inclu­ sion sometimes does as well. Furthermore, inclusion does not always make sense if it defined as habeas corpus. It is important for children who do not have disabilities and those who do to know the condition of other children’s lives, to see and understand the human diversity of which they are a part, and to value and honor the lives of others who are different from themselves in various abilities and in other ways. However, it is important also for adults and children to understand the importance

Definitions and other issues

7

of individual differences in learning and of instruction that fits individuals’ learning differences. Proprium instructio must override habeas corpus. Habeas corpus inclusion is, in our opinion, ideologically silly as a starting point, if not abusive in some cases.We think it can be abusive of students or their teachers or both. Hornby (2014, 2015) has proposed a definition of inclusive special education that is compatible with our views and Warnock’s (2005). He describes how the usual idea of full habeas corpus inclusion is flawed and emphasizes the point that inclusion in learning is the important thing, not bodily inclusion in a general edu­ cation classroom. Inclusive special education, Hornby concludes, does not make place the issue.The issue is that of including students with special needs or disabili­ ties in school and engaging them in an appropriate program of learning. To us, Hornby’s way of defining inclusive special education makes a great deal more sense than what we call habeas corpus inclusion. However, we believe we must avoid the hubris that can accompany an extreme of even proprium instructio. Only a tiny percentage of individuals with the most extreme disabilities is at issue here. Nevertheless, some professionals in special education and related fields (e.g., psy­ chology, special education, law) may accept the proposition that all must be taken to mean absolutely all—absolutely no exceptions for any living individual whatever, i.e., any individual who has not been pronounced dead. This, we believe, requires a kind of religious faith that there is no living individual to whom a meaningful skill can­ not be taught.This kind of extremism is, in our opinion, self-defeating and better avoided (e.g., see Kauffman & Krouse, 1981). An example of an individual who might not be considered educable in any meaningful sense is a person having no functioning cerebral cortex. A functioning cerebral cortex is not required for life, although we think it is for education in any meaningful sense. Special educators must be careful not to mistake their lack of instructional expertise for inability of an individual to learn a useful skill. Special educators also must recognize the limits of instruction practiced with the greatest expertise. In other words, even inclusion as proprium instructio has its limits. It is neither invincible nor magical. But, of course, the decision that an individual is or is not able to profit from instruction requires fallible human judgment, just as does identification of disability and determination of placement. Definition is a critical first step if inclusion is to become something of real value and purpose, as Imray and Colley (2017) explain. Given a definition, other issues follow.

Issues other than definition So many issues other than the definition of inclusion are raised in the practice of special education that it is a certainty some will not be addressed here.We sketch here only the most common, prominent issues. Authors of other chapters in this volume take up some of these same issues in more detail and raise other issues as well. In all cases, our concern is that the approach to inclusion should be both logi­ cal and consistent with the careful interpretation of data.

8

James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

Diversity Some have argued that disability is just another form of diversity addressed by the landmark 1954 SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (e.g., Stainback & Stainback, 1991). The Brown decision ended legal racial segregation in public education. In no way did Brown address disability. Subsequent legisla­ tion, passed in 1975 as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act or Public Law 94–142, now generally known as the IDEA, also addressed civil rights. However, the IDEA addresses only the rights of a group identified by disability, not by race or heritage. In no way does the IDEA deal with race or heritage.We have addressed elsewhere the differences in these two very important but totally different civil rights policies and the nonsensical contention that Brown somehow applies to dis­ abilities or that the IDEA deals with differences other than disabilities (e.g., Kauff­ man & Anastasiou, 2019; Kauffman & Landrum, 2009; Kauffman, Anastasiou et al., in press). Suffice it here to say that neither logic nor careful analysis of litigation supports the argument that Brown plays a significant role in matters involving dis­ ability or vice versa (e.g., Zirkel, 2005). In short, the role played by the landmark Brown decision in legal matters involving disability and the inclusion issue is mar­ ginal at best.

Identification of disability “Says who?” is a question that usually arises when disability is identified as such. Certainly, there are differences in physical development about which there is little or no disagreement that a person has a disability—the obvious and noncontrover­ sial cases. Deafness is not considered a disability by some in the deaf community, and there are those who resist the notion that any disability is in the person. Some argue that disability is only a social construct that can be eliminated by constructing a society that does not present barriers that disable individuals (see Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011, 2012, 2013). However, in the vast majority of cases, disability is not identified until the child is several years old, usually after the child is in school.The child’s disability is typically then identified as an intellectual disability, a learning disability, sensory impairment (i.e., a vision or hearing difficulty), a delay in or aberration of speech or language development, an emotional-behavioral difficulty, or other developmental problem or combination thereof. Adults (including parents, teachers, specialists, and physi­ cians) may disagree, at least initially, about whether the child has a disability, not just a relatively trivial or nondisabling difference. This is usually because the difficulty is not visible and is obvious only under certain environmental conditions or in response to specific environmental demands.Therefore, the identification of some disabilities is considered more obviously judgmental than in the case of an infant or young child with immediately obvious physical, directly observable, or immediately testable aberrations (see Kauffman, Strain, Steed, & Joseph, in press).

Definitions and other issues

9

Identification of a disability typically requires judgment, a comparison to what is considered “normal” development, a difference from typical that is so great it deserves if not demands special education (e.g., see Hallahan et al., 2019; Kauffman, Hallahan et al., 2018). Often, this is a difficult judgment, and errors are inevitable: false positives (yes, has a disability when the truth is no, does not have a disability) and false negatives (no, does not have a disability when the truth is yes, does have a disability). Unfortunately, these errors of judgment in education are often not immediately obvious, and the true positives and true negatives become known only in retrospect, usually years later. Attempts to avert these errors are often made by devising multiple (three or more) “tiers” of education. However, every tier requires a judgment of the student’s performance (the most appropriate tier for the indi­ vidual), so the question of judgment is compounded, not averted, and errors of judgment (false positives and false negatives) may be at least as likely (Kauffman, Badar, & Wiley, 2019; see also Lane et al. 2020). At best, tiers could involve quicker judgments and reduce false positive errors in entry to the tier, if any, that is consid­ ered special education. However, for that to become reality rather than hypothesis, decisions regarding special education would need to be made more quickly. Overall, it appears that false negative errors of judgment (i.e., a judgment that there is no disability when there actually is one) are more likely than false positive errors in the traditional two-tiered (special-general) system. This is especially the case when the disability involves emotional and behavioral disorders (Forness, Free­ man, Paparella, Kauffman, & Walker, 2012; Kauffman & Badar, 2018). However, one must also consider the way special education is viewed to understand which kind of error (false positive or false negative) is considered worse. Currently, false positive errors in identification tend to be considered worse than false negative errors, especially in those cases of disability considered to be highly judgmental.This suggests that special education is more aligned with legal proceed­ ings than with medical practice.That is, educators seem more like good judges, who most fear false convictions (false positives) than like good physicians, who most fear failure to treat true cases (false negatives).

Inclusion in all life activities, including education A common misunderstanding is that the notion of inclusion applies equally or similarly to all life activities, including schooling. However, education is unique in its implications for inclusion. This may be true of all life activities, but it is most obviously true of education. If inclusion is defined as being engaged in appropriate, publicly funded instruction, then inclusion is always appropriate because place is not the issue. Nevertheless, if inclusion is defined as being taught in a general edu­ cation class, then it may or may not be appropriate.The habeas corpus idea of inclu­ sion may be inappropriate because inadequate consideration is given to what the student knows and needs to learn, and the assumption is that whatever the student knows and needs to learn can be taught wherever the body may be.

10 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

In one sense—in that it involves instruction—education may be unique in its requirement of special places for certain purposes. For example, instruction in vari­ ous games may require an outdoor space, perhaps an athletic field; science experi­ ments may require a room equipped with various special gadgetry and materials needed for experiments; music instruction is typically done in a special room, at least if it involves instrumental ensembles, voice instruction, or choral groups; spe­ cial education may require separation from students without disabilities if it is to be most effective and not interfere with instruction of nondisabled students. However, other life activities also may require special places set aside for their function. For example, medical practice often requires special places, such as surgical suites or intensive care units; legal proceedings often occur only in a courtroom; concerts are typically played in special venues set aside for stage performances. Fully inclusive special education in the sense of habeas corpus could be unique, not just because it involves instruction but also because its practice in any place other than general education is proscribed. Making whatever places are required for specific life activities as accessible to and as inclusive of all individuals as possible, regardless of a person’s particular char­ acteristics, is a good idea as long as the integrity of the particular life activity is not undermined. However, age, size, and ability, for example, are relevant variables in many life activities, such as driving a truck on the highway or driving a school bus. If these variables (i.e., age, size, ability) are not considered for whatever activity is in question, then they can make a farce of that particular life activity. For example, the idea of “unified sports” involving players with and without disabilities (Shriver, 2018) becomes inappropriate if players, with or without disabilities, are coerced into participation.The idea of unified sports also becomes untenable when applied to professional teams and teams formed for interscholastic competitions. Individuals with disabilities should, indeed, be included in all the life activities in which they want to be and can be successful. Education has yet to demonstrate that all instruction can be delivered for all SWD in classes with their nondisabled peers, while maintaining both the effectiveness of special instruction of the stu­ dent with disabilities and effective instruction of students without disabilities (Zig­ mond & Kloo, 2017; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009; see also chapters 4 and 5.) Moreover, although accommodations should be made for inclusion of individuals with disabilities in all ordinary life activities, whenever that accommodation does not undermine or make farcical the particular activity in question, every type of activity, including schooling, has its limits of flexibility or accommodation without becoming farce. Perhaps an example from political life makes our point abundantly clear. Sena­ tor Tammy Duckworth (who lost both legs in combat) as well as the late president Franklin D. Roosevelt (who often used a wheelchair because of having had polio) demonstrated that physical disabilities do not prevent someone from election to high office and that election of such a person does not make their government service or legislation farcical. Nevertheless, someone with less obvious disabilities involving cognition and behavior can—through lack of understanding of many

Definitions and other issues

11

government functions, lack of knowledge of history and international conventions, aversion to reading, impulsivity, denial of realities, paranoia, prevarication, and a variety of other inappropriate and obnoxious behavior—make service as the chief administrator of government farcical. Disabilities do not all have the same implica­ tions for public service or for education.

International issues Inclusion has become an international issue, particularly since the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted in 2006 and prepared for signatures in 2007 (see CRPD, 2006). Article 24 of the CRPD deals with education and has been discussed extensively by Anastasiou et al. (2018; see also chapter 11; Hyatt & Hornby, 2017).Article 24 calls for a goal of full inclu­ sion in education without defining the term or calling for alternative placements when appropriate. Nor does Article 24 mention special education or appropriate­ ness of instruction for individuals.These absences are creating difficulties for many countries. Developing nations with only rudimentary systems of public education may have particular problems because of large regular class size or absence of legisla­ tion regarding education specifically for SWD or both. Most educators in such nations may have comparatively little understanding of the difficulties involved in the effective instruction of children with obvious disabilities. They may also have little appreciation of what is involved in identifying and accommodating dis­ abilities that are not immediately seen and are comparatively mild (e.g., relatively mild learning and behavioral disabilities). They are thus particularly vulnerable to demands for habeas corpus inclusion. Countries with well-developed systems of public education and laws govern­ ing education of SWD may find CRPD’s Article 24 to be in conflict with their country’s laws (e.g., Ahrbeck, Badar, Felder, Kauffman, & Schneiders, 2018; Kauff­ man, Felder, Ahrbeck, Badar, & Schneiders, 2018).That is, their countries may call for alternative placements rather than a blanket policy of full inclusion in regular classes. Some countries with experience attempting to implement full inclusion in general education may find a difference between the ideology of full inclusion as habeas corpus and its feasibility in educational practice (e.g., Anastasiou, Kauff­ man, & Di Nuovo, 2015).That is, their laws may call for full inclusion in the habeas corpus sense but find that full inclusion is not feasible in practice when inclusion is so defined. Also, some nations have laws for schooling of SWD that require (a) alternative placements determined on an individual basis and (b) placements that make sure the child receives appropriate instruction. These two matters are not mentioned in the CRPD’s Article 24. Because of the CRPD’s failure to define full inclusion in its Article 24 and its failure to address special education or alternative placements, some countries have declined to sign on to the CRPD as it is written. Alternatively, they may have appended to their approval of the convention a statement that the language of

12 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

the CRPD in its Article 24 will not supersede any of their nation’s existing laws governing special education, which may be more nuanced than the CRPD’s. Most important is the fact that no nation can be entirely clear about what they are agree­ ing to because the CRPD’s Article 24 does not define its central requirement— inclusion. So far, it appears that those attempting to support the CRPD show an implicit habeas corpus definition (Anastasiou et al., 2018).

Most difficult students to include in education When inclusion is defined as bodily placement in a general education classroom, all students are almost equally easy or difficult to include. The only differences in difficulty, then, might involve such issues as physical access (e.g., modification of physical spaces to accommodate physical disabilities); transportation; or employ­ ment of teachers with particular skills such as sign language, braille, or orientation and mobility. The apparent assumption of the CRPD that most or all teachers of general education classes will become competent in these special skills (e.g., signing, braille) may be judged, in the opinion of many, to be unrealistic.Typically, fluency in sign­ ing and use of braille requires years of training, although rudimentary skills can be acquired in less time. Children who are deaf or blind might be justified in expect­ ing their teachers to be highly competent, indeed fluent, in communication in their default medium of communication. However, such special expertise usually requires extensive special training and is not easily acquired by general education teachers. A matter involving greater numbers of students is instruction modulated to fit students’ needs for appropriate pacing, explicitness, and need for guided prac­ tice. Children with specific learning disabilities or other disabilities considered “mild” (e.g., mild intellectual disabilities or emotional and behavioral disorders) may have extraordinary difficulty profiting from instruction that is appropriate for most of their age peers.They may be extraordinarily difficult to include in general education classes because they bear no external signs of being unable to profit from ordinary instruction yet struggle mightily with or fail the general education curriculum. A habeas corpus approach makes inclusion relatively easy.When place is the issue, the definition of inclusion does not really put instruction first. Presence is most important, and exposure to instruction may be considered adequate. However, if students’ acquisition of the skills being taught is the more important issue, com­ pared to bodily presence, then inclusion is more difficult and takes on a different cast. When learning is the central issue, where the body is becomes secondary in importance.The least restrictive environment then cannot be the same in all cases. The LRE cannot be a moot issue, as Laski (1991) suggested, except under the habeas corpus definition of inclusion. With proprium instructio as the definition of inclusion, LRE becomes something to choose from alternatives, not something assumed always to be the same.

Definitions and other issues

13

Assessment of outcomes Perhaps the most widely known law related to educational outcomes was Presi­ dent George W. Bush’s idea, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of the early 21st century. “Left behind” was never clearly defined, although the NCLB was widely interpreted to indicate that differences in outcomes—gaps in performance of vari­ ous groups, as indicated by differences in mean scores of measures of achievement— should be closed such that the lower-achieving groups should improve to match higher-achieving groups. The idea of closing the gap between the average of students with and without disabilities is nonsensical. It ignores the very nature of disability in education. Com­ paring outcomes for children with and without disabilities reveals only the poor thinking of the comparison-maker.The outcomes that make sense in comparisons are those of learners with disabilities who do not receive special education to those of learners with similar disabilities who do receive special education (Kauffman, 2008). Gaps that should be closed are those between what students learn and what they can learn with better instruction. Gaps between the learning of students with and without disabilities can be closed only by providing less effective instruction for students without disabilities than to those with disabilities. Educators and the public should not want gaps to be closed at the expense of students without disabilities. The gaps between the achievement of students with and without disabilities can­ not be closed—and, in fact, will widen—if all students are given instruction that is equally appropriate for them as individuals.The nature of educational disability is that students exposed to the same instruction as those without disabilities do not learn as well. Sometimes, a difference in learning outcome is the result of inappropriate, inef­ fective instruction. In such cases, appropriate instruction may result in the SWD making extraordinary gains and matching or surpassing the outcomes for students without disabilities.We might conclude, then, that special instruction can close the gap between the individual’s achievement outcome and that of nondisabled stu­ dents, but two caveats are important: (a) Students with exceptionally low outcomes should be considered disabled (i.e., they are at a disadvantage in learning what their typical or normal peers can, regardless of the cause of the gap between their performance and that of the typical or average student), and (b) unless nearly all SWD make truly remarkable progress, the gap between outcomes for students with and without disabilities will remain—the averages will differ markedly (Kauffman, 2008).

Rights and their abridgement An individual’s rights can be abridged in at least two different ways: (a) They or a group may be denied access or services that are beneficial and available to oth­ ers who are similarly situated, or (b) they or a group may experience something

14 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

harmful, but others similarly situated are able to avoid it.The abridgment of rights depends on something being considered either harmful or beneficial, at least to some degree.That is, the matter of rights is not an issue or considered discrimina­ tory if the access or service in question is considered inconsequential—neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. Moreover,“similarly situated” refers to individ­ uals similar in age, training, and other characteristics relevant to the access, services, or privileges involved. Unfairness or discrimination enters the picture when the issue is the relevance of a characteristic to the particular privilege, service, or access (see chapters 6 and 10). For example, we do not consider it discriminatory that children under the age of 10 are denied a license to teach, practice medicine, or drive, whereas adults may obtain such licenses. Moreover, we do not consider it discriminatory that adults with the proper training are licensed to teach but those without the proper training are not. However, we do consider it discriminatory when, even though they have the proper training, men (but not women) can obtain a license. We also consider it discriminatory if people from Europe or America (but not those from Africa or South America), Christians (but not atheists or Muslims), people without disabilities (but not those using wheelchairs), and so on are licensed. The unfairness we call discrimination comes into play when people are given or denied access to something or placed at advantage or disadvantage on the basis of personal characteristics that are irrelevant to the access, advantage, disadvantage, or task. This understanding is important in thinking about special education and inclu­ sion, both of which, like many aspects of life (e.g., aging) carry both advantages and disadvantages. The United States’ law known as the IDEA envisions spe­ cial education as advantageous and necessary for SWD, and complaints of overidentification seem to be based primarily on the assumption that special education is disadvantageous, especially for those ultimately judged not to have needed it. This stance suggests that false positive errors of judgment are particularly noxious and frequent in the case of special education for ethnic minorities (Kauffman & Anastasiou, 2019).

Labels and labeling Labels and labeling are among the most predictable and vociferous objections to the identification of some disabilities, especially those considered judgmental, par­ ticularly emotional and behavioral disorders (Kauffman, 2013, 2014; Kauffman & Badar, 2013, 2018). The argument against labeling is not so much the label per se as the stigma that goes with the word (the noun) used to indicate the condition (the disability). A suggestion for dealing with the problem of labeling is often to have services without labels (clearly an impossibility, unless everyone receives the services without regard for any identifying characteristic) or to change the label (presumably to one less noxious).

Definitions and other issues

15

The matter of labels and labeling has been discussed extensively, perhaps ad nau­ seam. Sufficient here is pointing out the following: 1 2 3

4

5 6 7

We cannot discuss what we will not name (and names are labels). Specific names cannot be avoided (i.e., nouns cannot be eliminated from our language). Changing the name of something does not change its existence or nature (naming something does not create it, nor does changing the name of some­ thing change the essential nature of that something). The meanings of new words for the same condition eventually carry the same emotional valence as the original word, once people figure out the meaning or referent of the new word. The individual who receives a service that most people do not is inevitably labeled as one who receives that special service. Attempting to avoid stigma by using a word that applies to all (e.g., challenged) becomes a source of humor (i.e., they are used in jokes and as labels). As a field of study or practice becomes more sophisticated, its labels become more detailed and specific (Kauffman, Mock,Tankersley, & Landrum, 2008).

Labeling is sometimes a topic of debate in considering inclusion.The idea some­ times put forward is that full inclusion in the habeas corpus sense is that all students will have their individual needs met; therefore, SWD need have no label. One need not think deeply to see immediately that there is a problem of logic and commu­ nication here.An interview regarding that idea might go like this: “I understand that all students get what they need, but do they all need or get the same thing?” “Of course not, some have needs that others do not have, so they get something different. I just mean that they all get what they need without a label.” “Then, could we say,‘All needs are different, but some are more different than others?’” “No, but it is true that some have needs that others don’t.” “Well, tell me, how would you describe the need for, or the instruction of, say, a girl who is 11 years old and a nonreader?” “I would refer to her as an 11-year-old receiving instruction in beginning reading.” “But you would not say she is a nonreader?” “No, we do not label children, only the instruction they receive.” “So, how did you decide she needs instruction in beginning reading?” “Easy, she’s not able to read.” “But you just labeled her as someone who is not able to read.” “No, I just said she was not able to read. I did not call her anything.”

16 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

“But, doesn’t being unable to read mean she’s a nonreader, and aren’t ‘needs instruction in beginning reading’ and ‘not able to read’ labels?” “No, they’re just indications she needs instruction in beginning reading.” And so on; the conversation might have no fruitful end. Denial of reality may have long been common in America (Anderson, 2017; Specter, 2009), but it is not exclusive to the American culture.The appetite for self-delusion is strong but par­ ticularly strong in attempts to avoid communicating about unpleasant or uncom­ plimentary facts. One persistent delusion is that if we do not say a particular word, then its refer­ ent will not exist or that if a particular word is not used, then a serious problem will be attenuated or averted (Andrews et al., 2019). Often, this is because we shrink from recognizing the implications of a particular word. Also, we can observe that a once-acceptable word is now used as a derogation.We see this in attempts to avoid “the R-word” in special education.The nature of and reality of mental retardation is not changed by changing the word used to designate it. More important than the word itself (retarded and its variants) is the meanings people ascribe to it (i.e., how people think about mental retardation). Sometimes, a word is avoided for good reason because it has typically been used to demean someone. The N-word is not comprised of combinations of letters or sounds that are inherently demeaning, although “the N-word” has typically been used to demean people of color. But, people of color can be, have been, and are demeaned in other actions and words than the use of the N-word. Again, words themselves are not the basic problem.The meanings ascribed to labels make them problematic, and it is those meanings, not the words themselves, that constitute the more basic problem. Any word can become a derogation. We need not use what has become “street language” or obviously demeaning words (e.g.,“crip,”“weirdo,” “retard,”“noncomposmentos,”“welfare queen”) to signify disabilities or any other characteristics, but we do need to use language that is understood and is as precise and clear as possible. Changing people’s thinking—words’ meanings—is far more important than changing the words themselves. Also important is realizing that we simply ignore something for which we have no word at all (one essential meaning of Andrews et al., 2019 and #saytheword).

Evidence for inclusion Proponents of full inclusion of the habeas corpus variety often claim overwhelming research evidence accumulated over decades to support their views (e.g., see SWIFT Schools, 2019). Upon close examination of sources cited, however, the evidence for benefits to all SWD is not convincing to most skeptics. Inclusion of all SWD defined as habeas corpus and the multiple tiers touted by SWIFT are supported more by extrapolations and testimonial evidence or evidence of the benefits to students without disabilities than by reliable scientific evidence of benefit to SWD.

Definitions and other issues

17

In defense of the less-than-desirable scientific research evidence undergirding SWIFT and similar habeas corpus definitions of inclusion, we note that IDEA makes rigorous comparisons of various sorts extremely problematic or impossible. All SWD are required by law to receive special education that is challenging for them and to receive it in the LRE.Therefore, a researcher would need legal exemption to make valid comparisons of randomly assigned SWD who do and do not receive special education or receive it in randomly determined settings. Furthermore, dis­ abilities of students assigned to different educational environments would need to be judged similarly, the different educational environments would need to be staffed by teachers of similar competence using similar instructional procedures, and the outcomes would need to be judged similarly to and important for the SWD (see chapter 7). Research reported by Strain (2017) illustrates some of the difficulties in doing and interpreting research on inclusion. Strain serendipitously found that he could compare long-term outcomes for young children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who had been taught in regular classrooms (i.e., those included in the habeas corpus definition) to those taught in separate settings (those not so included). He found a clear advantage for those included in general education over those not so included. This would seem to indicate the advantage of inclu­ sion in general education for children with ASD. However, Strain was careful not to overinterpret those results. Besides noting that the findings did not apply to all SWD, he noted that the participating school districts had standard policies of either regular class or separate placements that applied to all or nearly all children identified in that district as having ASD. Furthermore, the instruction received by those in inclusive versus non-inclusive settings was quite different, with those in general education being challenged to learn and perform and those in separate classes not being so challenged. We might note, first, the inappropriateness, even illegality, of blanket decisions regarding placement of children in particular special needs categories. Second, the lack of challenge of students in the separate setting is inconsistent with good teaching practice and inconsistent with the Endrew F. rul­ ing of the SCOTUS.Thus, Strain’s findings could be interpreted as an indictment of special education as much as an indication of the better results of inclusion. One particularly noteworthy finding of Strain’s research is that it is possible for at least some SWD (in this case, ASD) to do very well in body-inclusive settings. This is a very encouraging finding, but Strain was careful to note that his study needs replication and that his findings do not provide support for inclusion in all cases. A second particularly important finding is that it is apparently instruction, not inclusion in general education, that is the more important factor in children’s learning. Good instruction can be, sometimes is, but is not consistently provided in either general or special education. A major challenge special educators must face is whether to concentrate effort on making effective instruction the focus of special education or of general education. Both are important, but our view is that making effective instruction a consistent feature of special education should be our priority as special educators. Reforming all of general education has so far been unsuccessful

18 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

(see Kauffman, 2011a), and even if the target of reform is changed from structure to instruction, reform of the smaller (special education) would make reform of the larger (general education) more likely. Strain’s (2017) findings are interesting and important for the inclusion issue, and his study is better than most in comparing inclusion to non-inclusion. Nevertheless, he was careful not to overgeneralize the evidence as supporting full inclusion in the habeas corpus sense and to include description of both the inappropriate, illegal blanket placement policies of the school districts and the failure of special educators to provide proprium instructio. His findings, we believe, reveal the weakness of special education as an instructional intervention. Habeas corpus inclusion is comparatively easy to achieve, and as long as special education does not provide proprium instructio in separate settings, habeas corpus will win the day.We are concerned about this in part because of what we see happening in schools in which habeas corpus and tiered systems of education are implemented. SWD in regular classes with their age peers are challenged by the regular cur­ riculum and are encouraged by teachers to perform as others. Nevertheless, the challenge is not appropriate and does not lead to their learning and mastery of the tasks presented. Most of these students simply do not have the pre-skills that lead to expected performance.They cannot give correct responses in the curriculum that others are learning. Most learn to “pass” by appearing to be engaged in instructional activities and not interfering with others.The danger we see is not only that sepa­ rating students from general education will be lost as a placement option but that we will return to the days when SWD were ignored, simply judged unable to learn anything worthwhile.Too often, only the general education curriculum is consid­ ered worthwhile; alternative curricula are considered “watered down” or otherwise inappropriate, substandard, or dead end. Another problem in ensuring effective instruction for SWD in general educa­ tion is that, in the general education classroom, the “services” are often provided by an instructional assistant (IA). Responsibility for teaching students with the most complex learning problems are thus delegated to teaching staff who typically are the least skilled, least trained, and lowest paid in the school.The IA then provides SWD with education that is SINO—special in name only. General and special education must be different, and it is unreasonable to expect general education teachers to do both what they must do as instructors of students without disabilities and, as well, what special educators must do as instructors of SWD (Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). Special education must refocus on instruction as the key to better education of SWD (Kauffman, Anastasiou, & Maag, 2017). General education may well need reform, but reforming general education is not our first business as special educators. Special education is what we should dedicate ourselves to improving. Scientific research of proprium instructio is very difficult, likely far more diffi­ cult than research dealing with fewer and more stable variables (Kauffman, 2011b; Strain, 2017). Research of habeas corpus inclusion, however, is comparatively easy, for body counts and recording bodily presence in a given place is straightforward and relatively simple.

Definitions and other issues

19

The research supporting many other aspects of education have little or no empirical support, including such things as whole-language reading instruction, culturally sensitive teaching, open classrooms, and facilitated communication (FC) and its variants (e.g., rapid prompting). In fact, in some cases credible research sup­ ports refutation of the claims made proponents, and only highly suspect data back the intervention (e.g., FC; see Jacobson, Foxx, & Mulick, 2016). Weak or absent empirical evidence does not mean that reliable related empirical evidence and logic cannot be used to draw rational conclusions. However, some interventions, habeas corpus inclusion among them, are supported by neither convincing data nor sound logic (Foxx & Mulick, 2016). Furthermore, the denial of scientific evidence threat­ ens to poison both our planet and our society (Specter, 2009).We hope the inclu­ sion issue, as well as other important issues in special education, will be guided by reliable scientific evidence and rationality, not by mere assertion and fervent belief or “alternative facts.”

Expectations of teachers Any suggestion that all teachers can be above the current average in knowledge and skill is preposterous (Kauffman, 2010). Given the nature of teaching and its rec­ ompense in the United States, even the suggestion that all teachers will have skills greater than the average of US teachers 50 years ago is very likely fantasy. Over and over, people have failed in attempts to reform public education in America (e.g., see Hampel et al., 1996). Unfortunately, concern has typically been changing the struc­ ture of schools rather than demanding instructional methodology that has research support (Engelmann, 2007; Engelmann, Bateman, & Lloyd, 2007; Engelmann & Carnine, 2011; Kauffman, 2011a; see also chapters 3 and 4). The expectation that teachers will consistently use evidence-based practices (EBP) in instruction and classroom management is a good goal but highly unlikely to be realized in general education.A start toward a more realistic goal than ensur­ ing that all general education teachers use EBP in instruction (some obviously do but nowhere near all) is ensuring that all special educators do. But even that expectation has not been realized, even for all teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (State, Simonsen, Hirn, & Wills, 2018). Furthermore, the expectation that general education teachers can and will provide appropriate instruction for all children with disabilities as well as their more typical students is profoundly unrealistic (Zigmond & Kloo, 2017) and denies the finite resources of teachers. In its unrealistic expectations of teachers, we argue that a habeas corpus approach to full inclusion implies an abusive expectation of teachers and, therefore, ultimately an abusive expectation of students.

Cost One appeal of the habeas corpus definition of full inclusion is its apparent cost saving. If all students are served together with no separate special education classes, then there is saving of classroom space. If all teachers are prepared to teach all children,

20 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

then there is considerable saving of costly personnel. Current special educators can be reassigned from teaching in special schools and classes to assisting general education teachers and lower-paid teaching assistants who provide direct services to SWD. A point of view that may become more common is that special education in the United States is in deep trouble,“mired” in outmoded concepts (Freedberg & Harrington, 2017; for commentary, see also Kauffman et al., 2017). It is certainly conceivable, given contemporary trends in government and education, that spe­ cial education will be considered a costly failure. This could result in attempts to lower costs by reducing the percentage of students receiving special educa­ tion, reducing the intensity of special services (including length and frequency of special instruction provided by trained special educators), and implementing full inclusion of the habeas corpus variety, thereby reducing costs of classroom space and personnel. The quality of education, and any other service or material good, is not merely a matter of cost. More expensive does not necessarily mean better. Nevertheless—as in any other endeavor, material or non-material—cost limits quality; lowering cost can and sometimes does mean sacrificing quality. Highquality public schooling is costly compared to that of lower quality, particularly when high-quality special education is included. Full inclusion in the habeas corpus definition may reduce immediate cost but prove costlier in the long run than full inclusion defined as all SWD receiving effective instruction and engaged in appropriate learning.

Summary and conclusion Inclusion can be defined in various ways. It may be defined as placement (the loca­ tion of a student’s body or habeas corpus) or as engagement in appropriate instruc­ tion (an instruction-based definition, proprium instructio), regardless of the place that instruction or other activity is provided. Full inclusion seems focused in most dis­ cussions on habeas corpus rather than proprium instructio. The international push for full inclusion is illustrated by the CRPD’s call for the goal of full inclusion. Article 24 of the CRPD does not define full inclusion, mention special education and alternative placements, or discuss the quality of education for SWD. Issues other than definition and international understandings and statements include, but are not limited to, identification of disability, inclusion in various life activities besides education, assessment of outcomes, abridgment of rights, labels and labeling, evi­ dence, expectations of teachers, and cost. The definition of inclusion that makes most sense if we want what’s most help­ ful to all SWD is activity-based (proprium instructio), not place-based (habeas corpus). More important than placement is the inclusion of all SWD in public education and instruction that is appropriate for them and will best help them acquire the skills they most need.

Definitions and other issues

21

References Agran, M., Jackson, S., Kurth, J., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., . . .Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1). Ahrbeck, B., Badar, J., Felder, M., Kauffman, J., & Schneiders, K. (2018). Fachbeitrag:Totale inklusion? Fakten und Überlegungen zur situation in Deutschland und den USA [Tech­ nical paper: Total inclusion? Facts and considerations on the situation in Germany and the USA]. Vierteljahreszeitschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete (VHN) [Quarterly Journal for Special Needs Education and Neighboring Areas], 87(3), 218–231. doi:10.2378/ vhn2018.art23d Anastasiou, D., Gregory, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2018). Commentary on Article 24 of the CRPD:The right to education. In I. Bantekas, M. Stein, & D.Anastasiou (Eds.), Commen­ tary on the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (pp. 656–704). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77, 367–384. Anastasiou,D.,& Kauffman,J.M.(2012).Disability as cultural difference:Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 139–149. doi:10.1177/0741932510383163 Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013).The social model of disability: Dichotomy between impairment and disability. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38, 441–459. doi:10.1093/ jmp/jht026 Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: Descrip­ tion and reflections on full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30, 429–443. Anderson, K. (2017). Fantasyland: How America went haywire. New York, NY: Random House. Andrews, E. E., Mona, L. R., Pilarski, C. R., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Lund, E. M., & Balter, R. (2019, February 14). #SaytheWord: A disability culture commentary on the erasure of “disability”. Rehabilitation Psychology, Online first. doi:10.1037/rep0000258 Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M.A. (2012). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and education­ ally useful programs (5th ed.).Verona,WI:Attainment. Blackman, H. P. (1992). Surmounting the disability of isolation. The School Administrator, 49(2), 28–29. Brigham, F. J.,Ahn, S.Y., Stride,A. N., & McKenna, J.W. (2016). FAPE accompli: Misapplica­ tion of the principles of inclusion and students with EBD. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. Rotatori (Eds.), Advances in special education.Vol. 31a—General and special education in an age of change (pp. 31–47). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. (1954). Causton, J., & Tracy-Bronson, C. P. (2015). The educator’s handbook for inclusive school practices. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. CRPD. (2006). Retrieved November 6, 2018, from www.un.org/development/desa/dis abilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). Engelmann, S. (2007). Teaching needy kids in our backward system: 42 years of trying. Eugene, OR: ADI Press. Engelmann, S., Bateman, B. D., & Lloyd, J.W. (2007). Educational logic and illogic. Eugene, OR: Association for Direct Instruction. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (2011). Could John Stuart Mill have saved US education? Verona, WI: Attainment.

22 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

Forness, S. R., Freeman, S. F. N., Paparella, T., Kauffman, J. M., & Walker, H. M. (2012). Special education implications of point and cumulative prevalence for children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20, 1–14. doi:10.1177/106342661401624 Foxx, R. M., & J. A. Mulick (Eds.). (2016). Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual dis­ abilities (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Freedberg, L., & Harrington,T. (2017, October 11). Special education in “deep trouble” and still needs reform, says California ed board president. EdSource. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://edsource.org/2017/california-education-board-president-says-spe cial-ed-in-deep-trouble-and-needs-reform/588436 Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality sys­ tem for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–395. doi:10.17763/haer.57.4. kj517305m7761218 Gartner,A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2019). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hampel, R. L., Johnson,W. R., Plank, D. N., Ravitch, D.,Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1996). His­ tory and educational reform. History of Education Quarterly, 36, 473–502. Hehir,T., & Katzman, L. I. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide pro­ grams. New York, NY:Wiley. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. New York, NY: Springer. Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the educa­ tion of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42, 257–256. Hyatt, C., & Hornby, G. (2017).Will UN Article 24 lead to the demise of special education or to its re-affirmation? Support for Learning, 32, 288–304. Imray, P., & Colley,A. (2017). Inclusion is dead: Long live inclusion. New York, NY: Routledge. Jacobson, J.W., Foxx, R. M., & Mulick, J.A. (2016). Facilitated communication:The ultimate fad treatment. In R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 283–302). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Kauffman, J. M. (2008).Would we recognize progress if we saw it? A commentary. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 128–143. doi:10.1007/s10864-007-9060-z Kauffman, J. M. (2010). The tragicomedy of public education: Laughing and crying, thinking and fixing.Verona,WI:Attainment. Kauffman, J. M. (2011a, March 2). Review of the same thing over and over: How school reformers get stuck in yesterday’s ideas by Frederick M. Hess. Teachers College Record, ID Number: 16356. Retrieved from www.tcrecord.org Kauffman, J. M. (2011b). Toward a science of education:The battle between rogue and real science. Verona, WI:Attainment. Kauffman, J. M. (2013). Labeling and categorizing children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders in the USA: Current practices and conceptual problems. In T. Cole, H. Daniels, & J.Visser (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to emotional and behav­ ioural difficulties (pp. 15–21). London: Routledge. Kauffman, J. M. (2014). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioral diffi­ culties in education. In P. Garner, J. M. Kauffman, & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), The Sage handbook of emotional and behavioral difficulties (2nd ed., pp. 505–516). London: Sage. Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Felder, M., & Hallenbeck, B. A. (in press). Special education policy prospects: Lessons from social policies past. Exceptionality.

Definitions and other issues

23

Kauffman, J. M., & Anastasiou, D. (2019). On cultural politics in special education: Is much of it justifiable? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 32, 78–90. Kauffman, J. M.,Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., & Hallenbeck, B.A. (in press). Becoming your own worst enemy: Converging paths. In C. Boyle, S. Mavropoulou, J. Anderson, & A. Page (Eds.), Inclusive education: Global issues & controversies. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Brill|Sense. Kauffman, J. M., Anastasiou, D., & Maag, J.W. (2017). Special education at the crossroad: An identity crisis and the need for a scientific reconstruction. Exceptionality, 25, 139–155. Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2013). How we might make special education for students with emotional or behavioral disorders less stigmatizing. Behavioral Disorders, 39, 16–27. Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2018). The scandalous neglect of children’s mental health:What schools can do. New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Kauffman, J. M., Badar, J., & Wiley, A. L. (2019). RtI: Controversies and solutions. In P. C. Pullen & M. M. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention and multi-tiered systems of support (pp. 11–25). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Kauffman, J. M., Felder, M.,Ahrbeck, B., Badar, J., & Schneiders, K. (2018,April 19). Inclusion of all students in general education? International appeal for a more temperate approach to inclusion. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 21, 1–10. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education:What it is and why we need it (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Kauffman, J. M., & Krouse, J. (1981).The cult of educability: Searching for the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Analysis and Intervention in Developmen­ tal Disabilities, 1, 53–60. doi:10.1016/0270-4684(81)90020-3 Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Politics, civil rights, and disproportional identifi­ cation of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality, 17, 177–188. doi:10.1080/09362830903231903 Kauffman, J. M., Mock, D. R., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2008). Effective service delivery models. In R. J. Morris & N. Mather (Eds.), Evidence-based interventions for stu­ dents with learning and behavioral challenges (pp. 359–378). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kauffman, J. M., Strain, P. S., Steed, E. A., & Joseph, J. D. (in press). Special education. In J. B. Benson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of infant an early childhood development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Elsevier. Kauffman, J. M.,Travers, J. C., & Badar, J. (2020).Why some students with severe disabilities are not placed in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1). doi:10.1177/1540796919893053 Kauffman, J. M., Wiley, A. L., Travers, J. C., Badar, J., & Anastasiou, D. (2019). Endrew and FAPE: Concepts and implications for all students with disabilities. Behavior Modification. doi:10.1177/0145445519832990 Kaushik, B. (Ed.). (2019). Creating inclusive schools:Theory, process and practice. New York, NY: Sage. Laski, F. J. (1991). Achieving integration during the second revolution. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 409– 421). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Osgood, R. L. (2005). The history of inclusion in the United States.Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Pullen, P. C., & Hallahan, D. P. (2015).What is special education instruction? In B. D. Bateman, J.W. Lloyd, & M.Tankersley (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Personal perspec­ tives (pp. 37–50). New York, NY: Routledge. Sailor,W. S. (2009). Making RTI work: How smart schools are reforming education through schoolwide response-to-intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass & Wiley.

24 James M. Kauffman and Jeanmarie Badar

Sailor, W. S., & McCart, A. B. (2014). Stars in alignment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 55–64. doi:10.1177/1540796914534622 Shriver,T. P. (2018, October 22).‘Unified teams’ benefit everyone. Washington Post, A19. Slee, R. (2018). Inclusion isn’t dead, it just smells funny. New York, NY: Routledge. Specter, M. (2009). Denialism: How irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives. New York, NY: Penguin. Stainback,W., & Stainback, S. (1984).A rationale for the merger of special and regular educa­ tion. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111. Stainback,W., & Stainback, S. (1991).A rational for integration and restructuring:A synopsis. In J.W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The regular education initiative:Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 225–239). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore. State,T. M., Simonsen, B., Hirn, R. G., & Wills, H. (2018). Bridging the research-to-practice gap through effective professional development for teachers working with students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, Online first, 1–10. doi. 10.1177/0198742918816447. Strain, P. S. (2017). Four-year follow-up of children in the LEAP randomized trial: Some planned and accidental findings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37, 121–126. SWIFT Schools. (2019, March). Retrieved March 27, 2019, from www.swiftschools.org/ sites/default/files/Research%20Support%20for%20SWIFT%202017.pdf; see also www. swiftschools.org Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look (Impact No. 11). London: Philoso­ phy of Education Society of Great Britain. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Zigmond, N. P., & Kloo,A. (2017). General and special education are (and should be) differ­ ent. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 249–262). New York, NY: Routledge. Zigmond, N. P., Kloo,A., & Volonino,V. (2009).What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189–204. Zirkel, P.A. (2005). Does Brown v. Board of Education play a prominent role in special educa­ tion law? Journal of Law & Education, 34, 255–271.

2 INCLUSION AS IDEA AND ITS JUSTIFICATION IN LAW Jean B. Crockett

“Disability is a permanent part of human history” (Smart, 2016, p. 10) and some­ thing that potentially concerns all of us, either directly or indirectly.As the number of children and adults with disabilities increases around the world, so does the need for deeper understanding of the issues related to their meaningful inclusion in schools and society (World Health Organization, 2018). People with disabilities represent an expanding demographic, comprising 15% of the world’s population (The World Bank, 2019) and 26% of the adult population of the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Given an aging global popula­ tion, and the impact of scientific advances on survival and quality of life, this group is expected to grow as an economic and cultural force, with disability more readily accepted as a naturally occurring part of life (Lee, 2016).With regard to ensuring social justice for members of this heterogeneous minority, sound public policies that distinguish discriminatory from reasonable practices in addressing the com­ plexities of inclusion are essential to managing diversity and political conflict in ways that enrich rather than divide members of society (Anatasiou, Kauffman, & Michail, 2016; Marx, 2014; Sunstein, 2007, 2009). Inclusion in education is different from other aspects of social inclusion because of its focus on instruction, and consequently the critical question becomes how best to meet students’ instructional needs (chapter 1). In the United States, where 14% of school-aged children are now identified as having disabilities (NCES, 2019), federal policies, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), refer to disability as being a natural part of the human condition, emphasizing the values of dignity, purpose, and equality of opportunity for all.With regard to appropriate instruction for students with disabilities, considering how inclusion as an idea should be defined and interpreted is central to implementing equitable educational policies and practices that no longer ignore but carefully

26 Jean B. Crockett

reflect their complex, disability-related learning needs and their preparation for productive and personally fulfilling lives (Deshler, 2005). Conversations about where special education students should be taught are especially fraught and currently framed by the term inclusion, which is variously defined as “depending on the user, the context, and the purposes involved” (Osgood, 2005, p. 2). Essentially,“inclusion is the philosophical belief that students with dis­ abilities should be educated in general education classrooms with their age- and grade-appropriate peers who do not have disabilities” (Yell & Christle, 2017, p. 27). Expressed as a theoretical ideal, “inclusion embodies the right of every child to be educated in a common setting where her or his individual needs and those of other children are addressed completely and effectively” (Osgood, 2005, p. 198). Despite confusion surrounding its meaning, inclusion has implications for the organiza­ tion of schools; the management of classrooms; the recruitment, preparation, and retention of teachers; and especially the planning and delivery of instruction for all students (Osgood, 2005). In American public schools, inclusion is not a legal requirement, nor is it referred to in federal special education legislation. Instead, the IDEA requires students with disabilities to be taught in the least restrictive environ­ ment (LRE), a hybrid policy approach that allows for both inclusive and separate placements as necessary to provide a student with an appropriate education. The promise of the IDEA, captured in the law’s purpose statement, ensures “that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public edu­ cation [FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living” (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A)). Special education is defined in the statute as “specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents . . . conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings” (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §1401(29)(A) emphasis added). Special education’s instructional mission addresses academic learning and extends beyond in meeting students’ social, emotional, behavioral, physical, and vocational needs.The placement or LRE provi­ sions of the law reinforce the promise of FAPE by requiring that: To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational envi­ ronment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(A))1 To convey a deeper understanding of the IDEA’s promise to provide students with disabilities an appropriate public education with nondisabled peers, the con­ tent in this chapter addresses the historical development of educational inclusion and associated ideas of integration and mainstreaming, and examines the conceptual

The justification of inclusion in law 27

foundations of the LRE principle and its application in special education law.Trends in student placement are reviewed in tracing inclusion’s roots in the evolution of special education and in examining the standards of review applied by courts in determining placement in the LRE. Concluding thoughts address future trends and the likelihood that placement decisions based on the facts of a child’s personal circumstances make for educational policy that is wiser and more just than deci­ sions mandated by an abstract and theoretical ideal of inclusion (Sunstein, 2007).

Tracing the idea of inclusion in special education Inclusion as an idea can be traced to long-standing debates about how and where to educate students with disabilities (SWD). Prior to the 1970s, SWD were often denied a public education or to be expelled when school personnel did not know how to teach them. Their exclusion from public schooling was considered to be massive (Colker, 2006); for those who did attend school, public education often became a youthful stop on the way to an institutionalized adulthood (Sarason & Doris, 1979). With the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94–142; EAHCA, 1975), now known as the IDEA, the US Congress declared the exclusion of students with disabilities from public schools unacceptable and established mechanisms to fund their appropriate public education at no cost to their parents (Huefner & Herr, 2012).The EAHCA was inspired by advocacy and built on civil rights legislation designed to eliminate the social isolation of people with disabilities, who were viewed historically as objects of pity, unable to attend school, or to work and live on their own.Although use of the term educational inclu­ sion is relatively recent, historical trends reveal progressive efforts to provide closer contact between students with and without disabilities and more equitable and normalized treatment in American schools (Osgood, 2005).

Special classes in public schools Interest in the education of people with disabilities grew with scientific discoveries in the 19th century and the establishment of organizational structures for instruc­ tional purposes separate from the mainstream of public education. Residential schools were built for students who were blind and/or deaf, and special classes were started in large urban school systems for students considered “defective” or “incor­ rigible.” By the turn of the 20th century, despite the passage of compulsory attend­ ance laws, special education instruction was rare. Not all students were required to attend school, especially those considered “severely handicapped” or “uneduca­ ble.” In the early 1900s, Elizabeth Farrell, a progressive educator, stimulated interest in special education by adapting curriculum and instruction in ungraded classes in which she could teach individually, carefully sequenced tasks; tutor students in functional skills; and use behavior management techniques in carefully arranged learning environments within a New York City public school (Gerber, 2017). Far­ rell and her colleagues are recognized as early advocates for equal opportunities,

28 Jean B. Crockett

having “established within a public school differentiated curricula and instruction based on assessment of students’ individual differences” (Gerber, 2017, p. 14). Spe­ cial classes and programs grew as a way to address special needs without reforming the organization of schools (Berry, 1941), and by 1920, Philadelphia, Boston, and New York featured special education classes as progressive centerpieces of their school systems. Special classes were costly investments, however, and by the mid-1930s, the eco­ nomic impact of the Great Depression resulted in notable drops in enrollment, as public school systems diverted funds from special programs. By 1940, conservative estimates indicated close to 4 million children in the United States needed special education, but only 400,000 children were enrolled in special schools or classes. Across the country, specialized private schools sponsored by newly organized pro­ fessional advocacy groups were started to fill the void left by general public edu­ cation programs. These schools were not free, however, and parents were charged tuition for their children to attend (Berry, 1941). Many families could not afford to pay tuition for private schooling, however, and sent their sons and daughters away for training in state institutions, which were often poorly maintained and operated.

Segregation or integration In the 1940s and 1950s, efforts from leaders across the country established state spe­ cial education laws and developed more sophisticated ways of evaluating students and preparing teachers to meet their needs. School systems had increasing confi­ dence that children would be offered options and opportunities through special education (Osgood, 2005). From 1948–1953, the number of public school districts providing special services increased by 83%, but only 18% of exceptional learn­ ers received specially adapted programming (Winzer, 1993).The combined efforts of parents and professional advocates, and the greater acceptance of disability in society following World War II, resulted in the number of SWD in public schools increasing to 2.2 million from 1948 to 1968, or from 1.2% to 4.5% of the K–12 population (Lazerson, 1983).With the growth in enrollments and special programs, discussion now focused on whether separation for instruction was advisable or effective, and debates were framed around the concepts of segregation versus inte­ gration (Osgood, 2005). The influence of the civil rights movement and the philosophy of normalization (Wolfensberger, 1972), an approach to providing human services for those with dis­ abilities in ways as normal as possible, ignited the disability rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Inspired by the victory for racial equality in education secured by Brown v. Board of Education, parents looked to the courts to require public schools to educate their children with disabilities.The continued advocacy of parents and their professional allies led to securing the right to education for all children in the United States and the development of principles in the EAHCA/IDEA embody­ ing the ideas of zero-reject and placement in the LRE.Those principles continue to make it unacceptable to exclude any children with disabilities from public school

The justification of inclusion in law 29

programs. In other words,“what was once commonplace practice is now unthink­ able” (Martin, 2013, p. 223).

Mainstreaming and inclusion Passage of the law, however, did not put an end to the evolution of ideas and ter­ minology describing the choice of educational environments. By the mid-1970s, the term mainstreaming took hold as the term of preference used by policy makers, advocates, researchers, and educators to describe efforts to integrate students with disabilities in typical schools and classrooms as appropriate but not exclusively. In the 1980s, some advocates advanced the ideas of full or complete mainstreaming, an aggressive approach to integrate every child, but by the end of the decade, conven­ tional use of the term mainstreaming was still widely used, as was progressive inclusion (Osgood, 2005). The terms inclusion and full inclusion came into use in the 1990s. Typically, inclusion implies that general education environments are the primary but not the only placement consideration, whereas full inclusion assumes general education placement for every student because “all means all, no exceptions” (Maag, Kauffman, & Simpson, 2019, p. 193). Neither term has been defined in the IDEA, or adopted by the courts as terms of art, because there is no widely accepted defi­ nition of what they actually mean across schools and districts. Although the term mainstreaming is now used less frequently in schools, it remains the preferred term used by the courts in deciding placement cases. It should be noted, however, that neither mainstreaming nor inclusion are legal terms but rather educational strate­ gies used to operationalize the principle of LRE in public schools. Ongoing confu­ sion about the various meanings of these terms continues to characterize current debates in the 21st century (Imray & Colley, 2017; Osgood, 2005), as special educa­ tion students spend more time in general education environments.

Trends in student placements In passing the EAHCA in 1975, Congress mandated that by 1978 all school-aged “handicapped” children in the United States, as well as those aged 3–5 years (bar­ ring conflict with a court order or state policies or practices), would be assured FAPE in the LRE. By 1980, these benefits were extended to youth 18–21 years of age. Under a separate part of the law, early intervention benefits were authorized in 1986 for infants and toddlers ages birth–3 years (see also Kauffman, Strain, Steed, & Joseph, in press). For more than 40 years, data have been reported annually to Con­ gress on the implementation of the federal law to ensure that students are receiving their promised rights.

Students served Data in the first Report to Congress (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979) indicated 3.6 million school-aged children received special services

30 Jean B. Crockett

during the 1977–1978 school year, although prevalence estimates suggested closer to 6 million children should have been served.This disparity was a concern, as was the large variation across states in the proportions of children identified as having disabilities, leading to the belief that states were serving far fewer students than pre­ dicted and not serving all eligible students for a variety of reasons. In some states, for example, children were unserved because of the historic pattern of offering special education only to students in elementary schools (US Department of Health, Edu­ cation, and Welfare, 1979). Within the next two years following enactment of the law in 1978, improved implementation across states increased the number served to slightly more than 4 million children (US Department of Education, 1980). More recently data from the 40th Annual Report to Congress indicated 6.8 million schoolaged children were served under the IDEA in the 2015–2016 school year (US Department of Education, 2018) with an increasing number of students served in general education environments.

Educational environments Since 1979, as documented in the annual congressional reports (https://www2. ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html), more than 90% of special educa­ tion students have been educated each year within public schools. In 2015–2016, only 5.1% of students 6–21 years of age were served full time in other environments (e.g., special schools, residential settings), representing mostly students identified with multiple disabilities or deaf-blindness; the remaining 94.9% of special edu­ cation students were educated in general education settings for some portion of their school day. Sixty-three percent of these students spent 80% or more of their instructional time in regular classes, 18.3% were included daily from 40% through 79% in regular classes, and 13.4% were included for less than 40% of the school day (US Department of Education, 2018). Although the reporting of placement patterns has changed over time, data indicate time spent in different educational environments within schools (e.g., general education classes, resource rooms, special classes) continues to vary across disability groups. For example, 60% to 70% of stu­ dents with specific learning disabilities; speech, language, or sensory impairments; and other health impairments (including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder) were included in regular classes for 80% or more of the school day, while fewer than 20% of students with multiple disabilities and intellectual disabilities were included in regular classes for the same percentage of time (US Department of Education, 2018). The EAHCA was authorized in 1975 to open the schoolhouse doors for SWD, and it has been very successful (Yell, 2019). Since then, the promise to provide these students a public education that is both appropriate and free of charge in an educational environment that least restricts their proximity to classmates without disabilities has remained constant in the IDEA. Exclusion from public schooling, however, is no longer the primary issue, with schools now held accountable for stu­ dents’ academic gains (Gilmour, Fuchs, & Wehby, 2019). Contemporary concerns

The justification of inclusion in law 31

center instead on whether students can access the services and supports they need to succeed in school in general education environments, with controversy and liti­ gation in some cases over what constitutes placement in the LRE for any given child (Crockett & Yell, 2017).

The legal justification of inclusion in special education The concept of LRE in special education emerged from the right-to-education cases in the early 1970s, including PARC v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Mills v. District of Columbia Board of Education (1972).These cases argued successfully that exclusion from public schools violated the equal protection of law under the 14th Amend­ ment to the US Constitution—basically, if the state provides education to one child, then it must provide an education to all children. Both cases also cited a legal preference for SWD to be educated with nondisabled students, so long as the education they received was appropriate to their needs. This approach was called the least restrictive alternative (LRA), an idea borrowed from the movement to relocate children and adults from residence in state institutions to other domiciles considered less restrictive. As applied in Constitutional law, the concept of LRA has a long history of serv­ ing to accommodate individual and state interests to one another so that regulations affecting citizens of a state might be both “appropriate” and “plainly adapted” to the desired end (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819). This principle has been phrased variously by the courts as the “less drastic means for achieving the same basic pur­ pose,”“the least restrictive means,” and “the least burdensome method” (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999). In other words, the government’s purpose, such as providing a child with an appropriate public education, should be served in ways that least curtail personal liberties, such as the right to associate with nondisabled peers.The term least restrictive alternative was eventually replaced with least restrictive environ­ ment, derived from influential publications promoting a continuum of alternative placements in which a student could learn appropriately in a setting as normal as possible (Deno, 1970; Reynolds, 1962; for a more thorough discussion see Yell & Christle, 2017). In practical application, the LRE principle directs educators to use the least restrictive alternative when they cannot provide an appropriately benefi­ cial education (i.e., FAPE) to a student with disabilities under the same conditions they would for typically developing students (Crockett & Yell, 2017). From a legal perspective, providing an individually appropriate education for each child with a disability remains the primary imperative of the law.

FAPE and LRE as legal principles FAPE, with its guarantee of specialized instruction, is the centerpiece of the IDEA. FAPE is defined as special education and related services that are provided at public expense, under public direction, and aligned with the state’s educational standards (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.17). Public school systems must offer FAPE to

32 Jean B. Crockett

students, ages 3 to 21 years old, who are identified as having a disability as defined in the IDEA and who need specially designed instruction to learn appropriately. FAPE, in turn, is assured through an individualized education program (IEP), a written document describing a child’s educational needs, the special services the district will provide, and the goals to assess whether the student’s needs were actu­ ally met (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); Bateman, 2017).

Developing an appropriate IEP The Supreme Court has defined the substantive meaning of an appropriate IEP twice, first setting the standard in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (1982) that to be appropriate, an IEP must be reasonably calculated to allow for educational benefit based on a student’s unique needs.Thirty-five years later, in Endrew F. v. Douglas Country School District (2017), the Court rejected the Rowley standard as being too trivial in determining educational benefit. In this case, the Court revised and heightened the substantive standard to mean an appro­ priate educational program must be reasonably calculated to allow the student to make progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances.When a student is not fully integrated in a general education classroom and is not able to achieve on grade level, as was the case with Endrew F., the IEP does not have to aim for grade level advancement, but it should contain “challenging objectives,” and it must be “appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular class­ room” (Endrew, 2017, p. 15; see also Kauffman,Wiley,Travers, Badar, & Anastasiou, in press). Both the Rowley and the Endrew F. standards also require an IEP to be devel­ oped in accordance with a detailed set of procedures that ensure participation by the student’s parents and qualified individuals who know the student best (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320–300.324). Once an appropriate IEP has been developed, the next step is to determine the LRE in which FAPE, embodied in the student’s IEP, can be implemented appropriately. Once again decisions must be made by a team (usually but not always the IEP team) including the student’s parents and others knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(a)(1); see also Bateman & Linden, 2012).

Making placements in the LRE Placement decisions must conform with the IDEA’s two-fold LRE requirement stipulating the presumptive right that (a) to the maximum extent appropriate, chil­ dren with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled; this pre­ sumption is followed by a statement of rebuttal in cases when integration is not appropriate, stipulating that (b) special classes, separate schooling, and other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only if

The justification of inclusion in law 33

the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)). Congress included the LRE principle in the IDEA to both affirm the desirabil­ ity of educating students with disabilities in the context of general education and to acknowledge that general education settings would not be appropriate for some students (Yell & Christle, 2017).To ensure students receive the appropriate delivery of special education and related services wherever they are served, public school systems are required to provide a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP). This continuum is articulated in the IDEA’s definition of special education and ranges from general education classes, special classes, separate schools, residential facilities, and hospitals to home settings, along with provisions for supplementary services (such as resource rooms or itinerant instruction) to be provided in con­ junction with general education class placements (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.115). As indicated in the federal regulations to the IDEA, the LRE requirement is not a rigid mandate for inclusion but a set of factors to consider in the case of an individual student (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.116).Three of these factors are mandatory: Placement decisions (a) must be made annually, (b) must be based on the IEP, and (c) must consider any potential harmful effect on the child or to the quality of the required services.Three other factors are qualified: (a) Placements are to be as close to home as possible; (b) unless the IEP requires another arrangement, children with disabilities are to be educated in the school they would attend if they were not disabled; and (c) special education students must not be removed from age-appropriate general education settings solely because of needed modifications in the general curriculum (Bateman & Chard, 1995).

The presumption of inclusion From a policy perspective, the LRE requirement is considered a rebuttable pre­ sumption. In other words, the IDEA presumes the general education environment is the least restrictive and most inclusive environment in which a student can receive appropriate instruction.This presumption can be rebutted on a case-by-case basis, however, by convincing evidence that appropriate implementation of a student’s IEP requires placement in an alternative instructional setting. In situations when it is difficult to apply a rule that is just in all cases, presumptions are useful items in the judicial tool kit because they allow for incompletely theorized agreements that require decisions made on specific data rather than on abstract theories. Incompletely theorized agreements allow stakeholders who sharply disagree to work together in making decisions on the basis of specific data instead of on an abstract, depersonalized ideal of what is good and what is right (Sunstein, 2007, 2009).As applied to special education, placement decisions based on a student’s IEP, instead of on a completely theorized view of inclusion as a moral certainty for all students, have a decided advantage in meeting the objective to “protect the rights

34 Jean B. Crockett

of some from being abridged, while giving appropriate opportunities to all” (Kauff­ man in preface, p. xx). Although the IDEA’s LRE principle draws its inspiration from the theoretical ideal of inclusion, its application in practice relies on a careful analysis of placement factors that consider what a particular child, in a particular set of circumstances, actually needs to make appropriate progress.According to judicial scholar Sunstein (1996) “tests of this sort imply a wide and close look at individual circumstances. On this view, justice is far from blind. It tries to see a great deal” (p. 144).

Trends in judicial decisions Courts consistently acknowledge the preference for educating all students together, but trends in case law reveal no clear pattern favoring inclusive over separate place­ ments (Rozalski, Miller, & Stewart, 2011; Warner, Roth, D’Agostino, & Brown, 2013; Zirkel, 2019a). In some cases, separate placements were considered too restrictive to be the LRE for a student. In New York, for example, a special class comprised of students with severe disabilities was considered unnecessarily restric­ tive for a student with autism (G. B. v.Tuxedo Union Free School Dist., 2012). In other cases, separate, specialized placements were upheld, as in Los Angeles when parents successfully challenged the closure of special education centers as violating the IDEA’s requirement for school districts to maintain a full continuum of alternative placements (Smith v. L.A. Unified Sc. Dist., 2016). Recent trends in case law also reveal the overlapping issues of LRE with FAPE; the varying extents to which sup­ plementary aids and services are provided across states and school districts; and with few exceptions, the deferential treatment of the courts to school districts in making educational decisions under the IDEA (Zirkel, 2018, 2019b).

Applying judicial standards of review Currently, there is no national framework to guide judicial decisions regarding placement in the LRE.To date, the Supreme Court has not interpreted a case spe­ cifically addressing LRE issues, leaving each federal circuit court of appeals to apply its preferred analytical standard in resolving placement disputes. In the US judicial system, circuit court rulings hold controlling authority over lower courts within their jurisdiction, and in some cases their reasoning may be adopted in different parts of the country because of its persuasiveness (for a map of states within each jurisdiction see www.justice.gov/jmd/ls/state). Several judicial tests, or standards of review, have been devised to evaluate whether a school system has complied with the LRE requirement. The four major frameworks include the Roncker standard, the Daniel two-part test, the DeVries three-part test, and the Holland four-part test. The Daniel test has proven most persuasive and has been adopted for use by the US Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Neither the First or Seventh Circuits have adopted formal LRE tests but balance the benefit of special and general education in determining if a student can be

The justification of inclusion in law 35

educated satisfactorily in general education classes. The major standards of review are presented next, followed by an example of how each analysis was applied to a subsequent case.

The Roncker standard The standard of review used in the Sixth and Eighth Circuits was originally devel­ oped by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Roncker v. Walter (1983) to deter­ mine whether Neill, a nine-year-old student with intellectual disabilities, should be educated in a special education school or a special class within a regular public school. The court acknowledged that a child’s need for an appropriate education might conflict with preferences for integration and developed a feasibility test, or a portability test, to determine whether services that made a separate, specialized placement superior for a student could be feasibly provided in a general education setting. Feasibility is defined by (a) whether benefits of the general education set­ ting are outweighed by the benefits of the special setting; (b) whether the student is disruptive in the general education environment; and (c) whether the costs of serving the student in general education are excessive, depriving other students of needed services. In sum, the Roncker standard requires proactive consideration of whether special services are transportable to general educational settings; if it is feasible to replicate services essential to a student’s appropriate education, then the more restrictive setting is not the LRE. Applying the Roncker standard In the case of L. H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education (2018), the Sixth Circuit applied the Roncker feasibility test in ruling the district’s proposed special class placement was not the LRE for a student with Down Syndrome.The court also determined his parents’ unilateral placement in a private school, where he was fully included with classmates without disabilities for five years, provided him with FAPE, thus making his parents eligible for tuition reimbursement.The court distinguished FAPE decisions regarding the substance of a student’s IEP from LRE placement decisions, referring to LRE as “a non-academic restriction or control on the IEP” (L. H. v. Hamilton., 2018, p. 8, italics in the original). Quot­ ing from Roncker v. Walter (1983), the court noted that establishing LRE concerns “whether, or the extent to which, a disabled student can be mainstreamed rather than segregated . . . In some cases, a placement which may be considered better for academic reasons may not be appropriate because of the failure to provide main­ streaming” (Roncker as cited in L. H. v. Hamilton., 2018, p. 9). In its decision, the court deferred to the parents’ assessment of their son’s progress, finding the school district’s arguments worrisome, disingenuous, and indicative that personnel failed “to properly engage in the process of mainstreaming L. H. rather than isolating and removing him when the situation became challenging” (L. H. v. Hamilton, 2018, pp. 16–17).

36 Jean B. Crockett

The Daniel two-part test In Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the analysis in Roncker, calling its judicial emphasis on deciding the feasibil­ ity of transporting special services “too intrusive an inquiry into educational policy choices that Congress deliberately left to state and local school districts” (Daniel R. R., p. 1046). Instead, the court developed a test in determining whether placement in a general education class for half-day and in a special class for the other half was the LRE for Daniel, a six-year-old student with Down Syndrome. In this analysis, the benefits of supplementary aids and services, and the academic and non-academic benefits of a general education placement, are considered.The Daniel test is a childcentered and fact-specific inquiry with two questions: (a) Whether education in the general education classroom, with the use of supplementary aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily, and (b) if not, whether the school has included the student to the maximum extent appropriate.This determination requires balancing whether the student can benefit more from general or from special education.To satisfy this analysis, more than token attempts at modifying instruction must be made; however, not every conceivable service needs to be offered, and undue teacher time and cur­ ricular modification are not required. The inquiry focuses on the student’s ability to grasp the essential elements of the general curriculum, although students are not to be denied placement in a general education setting because their progress is not equal to that of their general education classmates. As in the Roncker analysis, the effect the child has on other children and the quality of their education is a valid consideration. Unlike the Roncker standard’s strict interpretation of the integration presumption (Colker, 2006), “essentially, the Daniel court said that when the pro­ visions of FAPE and mainstreaming are in conflict, the mainstreaming mandate becomes secondary to the appropriate education mandate” (Yell, 2019, p. 265). Applying the Daniel test In Texas, the Fifth Circuit applied the Daniel analysis in the case of J. H. v. Fort Bend Independent School District (2012), upholding the IEP team’s change of placement for a 14-year-old student with intellectual disabilities from 50% mainstreaming to a separate special education class.When the case was decided, J. H. was in sixth grade with second grade academic skills and the adaptive behavior of an average seven­ year-old child. Applying the test’s two factors, the court determined J. H. was not benefiting academically or non-academically from inclusion in social studies and science classes, and the substitution of life skills classes for these general education classes would provide him with FAPE in the LRE. The court was persuaded by testimony that J. H. was not able to grasp the concepts of the curriculum, although he was provided with a great deal of supplementary aids and support. As academic pressures rose, he became withdrawn and frustrated, which limited his interac­ tions with classmates. Citing the Daniel decision, the court noted “schools must retain flexibility in educational planning’ in order to address each student’s needs,

The justification of inclusion in law 37

emphasizing the importance of balancing Congress’s preference for ‘mainstream­ ing’ with the reality that general education is not suitable for all disabled students” (Daniel R. R. as cited in J. H. v. Fort Bend Independent School District, 2012, p. 5).

The DeVries three-part test The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals devised another test in DeVries v. Fairfax County School Board (1989) in determining that the LRE for Michael, a 17-year-old student with autism, was a county vocational center that could provide him with necessary structure and one-to-one instruction. The court noted that Congress expressed a strong preference for special education students to be educated in the mainstream but also stated that mainstream placements would not be appropri­ ate for every special education student. The court referred to elements in both the Roncker and Daniel standards of review in devising its own test that stipu­ lates mainstreaming is not required when (a) a student with a disability would not receive educational benefit from placement in a general education class; (b) any marginal benefit would be significantly outweighed by benefits that could feasibly be obtained only in a separate instructional setting; or (c) the student is a disruptive force in the general education classroom. Applying the DeVries test In R. F. v. Cecil County Public Schools (2019) the Fourth Circuit determined partial mainstreaming met the LRE requirement for a seven-year-old girl with severe autism and a rare genetic disorder, instead of placement in a private special educa­ tion school as desired by her parents. Although IDEA procedures were violated when the district increased the time R. F. spent in a special class without inform­ ing her parents, the court found FAPE was not denied because her teacher did so gradually by individually monitoring her performance and interactions in general education environments. As a result, the district provided R. F. with more hours of special education instruction, not fewer, which accorded with her parents’ objec­ tions that the IEP offered too many hours of general education. In making its decision, the court referred to the DeVries case in stating the appropriate inquiry in determining LRE “was whether a child’s placement—the setting where the child learns—provides the child with a FAPE” (R. F. v. Cecil County Public Schools, 2019, p. 16). According to the Fourth Circuit, “the statutory obligation requires placement in the least restrictive environment appropriate for the child’s educa­ tion. As in DeVries, that required an environment where R. F. could benefit from ‘a structured program’ and the opportunity for ‘one to one instruction’” (p. 16).The court acknowledged overlapping issues of FAPE and LRE in holding that “the combination of reasonably ambitious goals that were focused on R. F.’s particular circumstances and that were pursued through the careful and attentive instruction of specialized professionals provided the education R. F. is entitled to under the statute” (pp. 27–28).

38 Jean B. Crockett

The Holland four-part test In Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. (1994), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals developed a test in determining that the LRE for 11-year-old Rachel Holland, a student with moderate intellectual disabilities, was full-time placement in a general education classroom with appropriate aids and services. The Holland test differs from the others by not balancing the benefits of special and general education but considering only if a student can receive an education satisfacto­ rily in a general education environment.This analysis addresses four issues: (a) The benefits of placing the student in a full-time general education program; (b) the non-academic benefits of such a placement; (c) the effect the student would have on the teacher and other students in the general education classroom; and (d) the costs associated with this placement. Although upholding an inclusive placement with supplementary aids and services in this instance, the court instructed that as part of the annual IEP process, all future placements for Rachel should be similarly determined by this four-part framework. Applying the Holland test In the case of B. E. L. v Hawaii (2018), the Ninth Circuit applied the multi-factor Holland analysis in upholding the more restrictive placement recommended in the IEP as the LRE for a second grade student with specific learning disabilities.The parents argued their son was denied FAPE by not being fully included for instruc­ tion, calling his placement in special education classes for reading and mathematics, and in general education classes for all other subjects, too restrictive. When the district denied providing full-day inclusion with supplementary aids and services in reading and math, the parents unilaterally placed their son in a private school spe­ cializing in dyslexia and sued for tuition reimbursement. In finding for the district, the court deferred to the testimony of the student’s teachers that he was disruptive and failing to reach benchmarks despite receiving a variety of interventions and accommodations and also noted he was integrated with nondisabled classmates for the rest of the school day.

Balancing analyses and their application Both the First and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals use a balancing analysis grounded in the language of the IDEA, rather than using a judicial test or frame­ work to make LRE decisions. The following two cases illustrate this approach. In the First Circuit case of C. D. v. Natick Public Schools (2019), the parents of a high school student with intellectual disabilities and significant language deficits argued that in determining whether a special program constituted his LRE, the First Circuit should adopt the multi-factor Daniel test. The circuit court rejected their argument and confirmed its established practice of weighing the preference for mainstreaming with the FAPE mandate: “The two requirements [FAPE and

The justification of inclusion in law 39

LRE] operate in tandem to create a continuum of possible educational environ­ ments each offering a different mix of benefits (and costs) for a student’s academic, as well as social and emotional progress” (C. D. v. Natick Public Schools, 2019, p. 20). Emphasizing the importance of context and individual circumstances, the court also emphasized “the IDEA vests state and local officials, not federal courts, with the primary responsibility to make placement decisions consistent with §1412 (a) (5) (A)” (p. 22). In the Seventh Circuit case of Beth B. v.Van Clay (2002), a federal district court in Illinois discussed the merits of judicial frameworks, finding the Daniel test supe­ rior in following the language of the IDEA and the Roncker test inferior in plac­ ing more emphasis on what services could be delivered than on what the student learned. Upholding the judgment of the lower court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals relied on its established practice of using a fact-specific inquiry, deciding that a special class placement with reversed mainstreaming for a 13-year-old stu­ dent with a rare neurological condition represented “an acceptable point along the continuum of services between total integration and complete segregation” (Beth B. v.Van Clay, 2002, at 498). As long as the special program included opportunities for interaction with nondisabled peers, the placement satisfied the requirement that Beth be mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate.The court noted “the FAPE provision and LRE provision are two sides of the same IEP coin” (at 498) but identified the determination of FAPE in the IEP as being the threshold for any placement inquiry. Although the judicial standards of review vary across circuits and their applica­ tion of the law in different cases may result in different decisions, these standards share a number of common factors (i.e., appropriate educational benefit, preference for general education placement with appropriate supplementary aids and services, disruption to the education of other students, and cost as a secondary considera­ tion) as a consequence of applying the language of the law (Underwood, 2018). Due to the commonality among the circuit courts, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will soon hear an LRE case (Yell, 2019), although some matters remain unsettled in meeting the integration preference, such as the interrelationship of FAPE and LRE and the extent to which supplementary aids and services must be considered and provided in support of inclusion.Although the Supreme Court established the standard of an appropriate IEP in Rowley (1982) and in Endrew F. (2017), the more contextual issues related to the LRE principle continue to be left to stakeholders and the courts to decide.

Lessons from legislation and litigation The use of discretionary judicial frameworks indicates the integration presumption of the IDEA is not a rigid rule. Although the IDEA prefers all students to be edu­ cated together, it does not require inclusion. However, courts give careful scrutiny to decisions that place students in alternatives to general education classes. Placement decisions require careful analysis because the law acknowledges a rational basis for

40 Jean B. Crockett

determining that a child’s appropriate education might be provided in special­ ized settings using different approaches to typical instruction. Several principles for making placement decisions can be extrapolated from the legislation and litigation related to the LRE principle that include (a) focusing on the facts of the individual case by developing an appropriate IEP; (b) selecting a placement in which the IEP can be implemented appropriately with the use of supplementary aids and services and where the student has the most contact with nondisabled classmates; (c) using the continuum of alternative placements to determine the LRE; and (d) involving the child’s parents fully in every step of the decision-making process. In sum, the basis for legal reasoning about inclusion for students who receive special education rests with the LRE requirements of the IDEA. Placing students in the LRE may no longer be a hot-button legal issue with regard to the frequency of litigation, but it remains “a pedagogical issue that has not yet been resolved at a ‘best practice’ level of effective inclusion in many parts of the country” (Zir­ kel, 2018, p. 1). State and local policies may provide prescriptions for services and funding that direct the law’s implementation differently, resulting in great variance in the extent to and effectiveness with which inclusion is practiced across states, school districts, and even across schools within the same district (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013).This variability compromises the generalizability of studies on the effectiveness of inclusion as a service delivery model, and although the LRE policy presumes inclusion is beneficial for most students, 40 years of research and implementation provide inconclusive evidence to support that presumption (chap­ ter 7; Crockett, Filippi, & Morgan, 2012; Gilmour et al., 2019; Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). Essentially, the infrastructure to support many effective practices and highquality instruction for students with disabilities is not in place (Fowler, Coleman, & Bogdan, 2019). For over 100 years, educators have engaged in ongoing technical, legal, and insti­ tutional innovations in attempting to provide special education, originally meant to be “a publicly supported education responsive to sometimes extreme individual differences” (Gerber, 2017, p. 14). In addition to collaborative and administrative barriers, the costs of funding special education have been a perennial concern and remain a current challenge. Federal dollars have never been sufficient to cover the excess costs of providing FAPE in the LRE, leaving states and local communities to make up the difference (Baker, Green, & Ramsey, 2019).Absent consensus about the effectiveness of inclusion and public investments in special education, and given the mounting accountability for students with disabilities to receive the instruction they need to be successful, future concerns regarding the LRE principle are likely to address the strength with which inclusive settings should be presumed to be the de facto placement for all students.

The future of the LRE principle Although societal norms of integration have expanded since students with dis­ abilities were excluded from public education or not educated at all, educators,

The justification of inclusion in law 41

advocates, and attorneys continue to view the idea of inclusion from different perspectives. For many stakeholders, special education remains synonymous with appropriate, specially designed instruction delivered across a continuum of alterna­ tive placements. For others, the goal is large-scale transformation through inclusion defined as “the fundamental restructuring of schools to engage hospitably with all forms of difference, including disability (UNESCO, 1994; Slee, 2011)” (Narajian, 2016, p. 3). Challenging this transformational idea of inclusion, some concerned about high expectations for the academic success of all students advocate against elevating inclusion to the level of a mandate, arguing this would violate the IDEA’s promise of individualization. From this perspective, “It is no longer reasonable for courts to be overly solicitous of the integration presumption at the cost of a child’s education (Schinagle & Bartlett, 2015, p. 246).These arguments and aspira­ tions about inclusion are complex and continue to raise practical questions, such as “How far are schools, teachers, parents, or students willing to go? How much are they willing to change? How much are they willing to invest in time, energy, resources, or money?” (Osgood, 2005, p. 195). Motivated by concerns that the LRE requirements might be revised in the cur­ rent political context of deregulation, privatization, and school choice, a coalition of former federal officials and disability-related organizations released a statement expressing opposition to any reinterpretations of the law’s presumption stating,“We will work together to vigorously protect current law and fight any interpretation of LRE that alters or weakens IDEA’s clear requirement that schools and districts must consider general education first for every child” (Joint Statement, 2019, para 4). Though not rising to the level of a mandate, this statement reflects a decided shift in emphasis to a more explicit presumption of general education placement for every student than the IDEA’s expressed requirement for students with and without dis­ abilities to be educated together to the maximum extent appropriate. In the context of political conflict, presumptions are considered to be positive policy tools because they push practice toward desired public ends, in this case the educational inclusion of students with disabilities, while offering greater freedom of choice and protection against what some affected parties judge to be personally harmful. Presumptions, however, are also blunt instruments with the potential to cause unintended harm, as when they prevent the delivery of individualized and intensive instruction beyond the general education classroom to students who need a greater level of support to access learning (Colker, 2006; Crockett, 2014; Gilmour et al., 2019).

Concluding thoughts on the future of inclusion Fundamental disagreements about how to educate children reflect personally defining and deeply held commitments (Sunstein, 1996), and such is the case with the idea of educational inclusion for the increasing numbers of children with disabilities in today’s schools. The pursuit of inclusion in general educa­ tion environments is the pursuit of an ideal for some but not for others. Where

42 Jean B. Crockett

some stakeholders see the specter of segregation in the re-emergence of spe­ cial classes aligned with academic subject areas (Bacon, Rood, & Ferri, 2016), others see empirically supported opportunities in small, structured learning environments for students to be taught appropriately (Gilmour et al., 2019). Arguments about inclusion in schools run deep, although stakeholders may agree on the general principle of educating students with and without disa­ bilities together. Nevertheless, they might sharply disagree on what this entails in particular cases. For decision makers, entrusted with navigating such dis­ putes, data-based approaches that encourage inclusion but allow for separation when appropriate can help to balance contextual factors and stakeholder con­ cerns by converging on arguments of fairness—on what is just for this child in these circumstances (Sunstein, 2007). This approach may seem inferior to more ambitious goals of full inclusion, but as educational historian Osgood (2005) remarked, assuming “all children will succeed and be happy in an integrated setting—and indeed have a desire and a responsibility to be there—will force children into a setting they neither want nor benefit from” (p. 200). In reflecting on the history of education, it is not difficult to imagine how such an outcome would be all too reminiscent of the fate endured by those children with disabili­ ties consigned inappropriately to the margins of schooling prior to the break­ through special education legislation of 1975 (Martin, 1974, 2013).

Note 1 The terms regular education and regular classes are retained as originally used in policy docu­ ments, court decisions, and older educational publications. Otherwise, the term general education will be used in this chapter.

References Anatasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Michail, D. (2016). Disability in multicultural theory: Con­ ceptual and social justice issues. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27, 3–12. Bacon, J., Rood, C. E., & Ferri, B. A. (2016). Promoting access through segregation: The emergence of the “prioritized curriculum” class. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–22. Baker, B. D., Green, P. C., III, & Ramsey, M. J. (2019). Financing education for children with special needs. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (2nd ed., pp. 116–133). New York, NY: Routledge. Bateman, B. D. (2017). Individual education programs for children with disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 87–104). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Bateman, B. D., & Chard, D. J. (1995). Legal demands and constraints on placement deci­ sions. In J. M. Kauffman, J.W. Lloyd, D. P. Hallahan, & T. A. Astuto (Eds.), Issues in educa­ tional placement: Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 285–316). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M.A. (2012). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and education­ ally useful programs (5th ed.).Verona,WI:Attainment.

The justification of inclusion in law 43

B. E. L. v. Hawaii, No. 14-17316 (9th Cir. 2018).

Berry, C. S. (1941). General problems of philosophy and administration in the education of

exceptional children. Review of Educational Research, 11, 253–260. Beth B. v.Van Clay, 282 F.3d. 493 (7th Cir. 2002). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (1982). C. D. v. Natick Public Schools, No. 18-1794 (1st Cir. 2019). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Disability impacts all of us. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html Colker, R. (2006). The disability integration presumption: Thirty years later. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154, 789–862. Crockett, J. B. (2014). Reflections on the concept of the least restrictive environment in special education. In B. Cook, M.Tankersley, & T. Landrum (Eds.), Special education past, present, and future perspectives from the field: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 27, pp. 39–61). London: Emerald. Crockett, J. B., Filippi, E. A., & Morgan, C. W. (2012). Included, but underserved? Redis­ covering special education for students with learning disabilities. In B.Y. L. Wong & D. Gallagher (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 405–436). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpre­ tations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crockett, J. B., & Yell, M. L. (2017). IEPs, least restrictive environment, and placement. In J. R. Decker, M. M. Lewis, E.A. Shaver,A. E. Blankenship, & M.A. Paige (Eds.), The principal’s legal handbook (6th ed., pp. B55–B88). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association. Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989). DeMatthews, D. E., & Mawhinney, H. (2013).Addressing the inclusion imperative:An urban school district’s responses. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21. Retrieved from https:// epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1283 Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital.Exceptional Children,37, 229–237. Deshler, D. D. (2005). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Unique challenges and reasons for hope. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 122–124. DeVries v. Fairfax County School Board, 882 F.2d 876 (4th Cir. 1989). Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142), 20 U.S.C. § 1400–1461 (1975). Endrew F. v. Douglas Country School District, Re-1,137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). Fowler, S.A., Coleman, M. R., & Bogdan,W. K. (2019). The state of the special education profes­ sion survey report. Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from www.cec.sped.org/ Special-Ed-Topics/State-of-the-Profession G. B. v.Tuxedo Union Free School Dist. 486 Fed.Appx. 954. (2nd Cir. 2012). Gerber, M. M. (2017).A history of special education. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge. Gilmour, A. F., Fuchs, D., & Wehby, J. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85, 329–346. Huefner, D. S., & Herr, C. M. (2012). Navigating special education law and policy. Verona, WI: Attainment. Imray, P., & Colley,A. (2017). Inclusion is dead: Long live inclusion. New York, NY: Routledge. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (2004). J. H. v. Fort Bend Independent School Dist., 482 Fed.Appx. 915 (5th Cir. 2012).

44 Jean B. Crockett

Joint Statement on Maintaining the Least Restrictive Environment Requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2019). Retrieved from www.policyin sider.org/2019/07/joint-statement-on-maintaining-the-least-restrictive-environment­ requirements-of-idea.html Kauffman, J. M., Strain, P. S., Steed, E. A., & Joseph, J. D. (in press). Special education. In J. B. Benson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of infant and early childhood development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Elsevier. Kauffman, J. M.,Wiley, A. L.,Travers, J. C., Badar, J., & Anastasiou, D. (in press). Endrew and FAPE: Concepts and implications for all students with disabilities. Behavior Modification. Lazerson, M. (1983). The origins of special education. In J. G. Chambers & W. T. Hartman (Eds.), Special education policies:Their history, implementation, and finance (pp. 15–47). Phila­ delphia, PA:Temple University Press. Lee, B. Y. (2016, November 2). An overlooked and growing market: People with disabili­ ties. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2016/11/02/ an-overlooked-and-growing-market-people-with-disabilities/#62c614dd2ab0 L. H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education, Nos. 17-5989/18-5086 (6th Cir. 2018). Maag, J. W., Kauffman, J. M., & Simpson, R. L. (2019). The amalgamation of special edu­ cation? On practices and policies that may render it unrecognizable. Exceptionality, 27, 185–200. Martin, E.W. (1974). Some thoughts on mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 41, 150–153. Martin, E. W. (2013). Breakthrough: Federal special education legislation: 1965–1981. Sarasota, FL: Bardolf. Marx, G. (2014). Twenty-one trends for the 21st century. Bethesda, MD: Education Week Press. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819). Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972). Narajian, S. (2016). Spatializing student learning to reimagine the “place” of inclusion. Teach­ ers College Record, 118, 1–46. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2019). The condition of education: Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp Osgood, R. L. (2005). The history of inclusion in the United States.Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylva­ nia, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa., 1971). Reynolds, M. C. (1962). A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 28, 367–370. R. F. v. Cecil County Public Schools, No. 18 1780 (4th Cir. 2019).

Roncker v.Walter, 700 F.2d. 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).

Rozalski, M., Miller, J., & Stewart, A. (2011). Least restrictive environment. In J. M. Kauff­ man & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 107–120). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H., 14 F. 3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994). Sarason, S. B., & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history. New York, NY: Free Press. Schinagle, B. S., & Bartlett, M. J. (2015). Strained dynamic of the least restrictive environment concept in the IDEA. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 35, 229–249. Smart, J. (2016). Disability, society, and the individual (3rd ed.).Austin,TX: Pro-ed. Smith v. L.A. Unified School District, No. 14-55224 (9th Cir. 2016). Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Legal reasoning and political conflict. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

The justification of inclusion in law 45

Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Incompletely theorized agreements in constitutional law. Social Research, 74, 1–24. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Underwood, J. (2018). Defining the least restrictive environment. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(3), 66–67. US Department of Education. (1980). Second annual report to Congress on the Implementation of Public Law 94-142:The Education for All Handicapped Children Act.Washington, DC: US Office of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Gov­ ernment Printing Office. US Department of Education. (2018). 40th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2018/ parts-b-c/40th-arc-for-idea.pdf US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1979). A report to Congress on the imple­ mentation of Public Law 94-142:The Education for All Handicapped Children Act.Washington, DC: US Office of Education, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Govern­ ment Printing Office. Warner, C., Roth, J. A., D’Agostino,T., & Brown, C. J. (Eds.). (2013). Students with disabilities and special education law. Malvern, PA: Center for Education and Employment Law. Winzer, M. A. (1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration.Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization. Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unmc.edu/wolf_books/1/ The World Bank. (2019). Disability inclusion. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org/en/topic/ disability World Health Organization. (2018). Disability and health. Retrieved from www.who.int/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health Yell, M. L. (2019). The law and special education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Yell, M. L., & Christle, C. A. (2017). The foundation of inclusion in federal legislation and litigation. In C. M. Curran & A. J. Petersen (Eds.), The handbook of research on classroom diversity and inclusive education practice (pp. 27–74). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Zigmond, N. P., & Kloo,A. (2017). General and special education are (and should be) differ­ ent. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 249–261). New York, NY: Routledge. Zirkel, P. A. (2018). Special education legal alert: June. Retrieved from https://perryzirkel.files. wordpress.com/2018/06/zirkel-legal-alert-june-2018.pdf Zirkel, P.A. (2019a).National update of case law, 1998 to the present, under the IDEA and section 504/ ADA.Alexandria,VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Zirkel, P.A. (2019b). Special education legal alert: May. Retrieved from https://perryzirkel.files. wordpress.com/2019/05/zirkel-legal-alert-may-2019.pdf

3 THE INCLUSION OF STUDENTS WITH HIGH-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES IN GENERAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTS Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

Although the integration of students with disabilities (SWD) into general educa­ tion environments has been the norm for nearly half a century, educational inclu­ sion remains a contentious and divisive issue. In part, this can be attributed to the lack of a precise definition of “inclusion” in research (e.g., Simpson, 2004) and the law (e.g., Huefner, 2015; see also chapters 1, 2, & 10). Certainly, under its philosophical and ideological guise, inclusion rests on very specific conceptions of social justice, civil rights, and equity.Yet the term is not monosemic in meaning or application (Hornby, 2015), and the philosophical and legal issues surrounding the provision of educational access have given way to a more nuanced debate about how educational inclusion is considered in light of the academic outcomes of SWD (Fuchs et al., 2015). Moreover, ambiguities in the concept of inclusion have stifled debate and ossified values and beliefs about the meaning and preferred strategies for effectively integrating students with disabilities in general education settings. In this chapter, we contend that a modern evaluation of educational inclusion must draw upon methodologically sound evidence that students receive meaningful benefit from specialized instruction and services (see also chapter 7).We further argue that placement of students with high-incidence disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities [ID], learning disabilities [LD], and emotional and behavioral disorders[EBD]) in general education settings should be predicated on evidence that instruction and services that lead to such benefit (i.e., that are appropriate) can be effectively deliv­ ered in these settings.

Priorities of educational inclusion (what first, where second) Historically, discussions of educational inclusion for SWD have tended to emphasize educational access, and for better or worse, this access has frequently been viewed as

Inclusion and general education

47

intrinsically tied to placement decisions. For example, the effectiveness of separate schools or settings was debated in the 1970s by right-to-education cases initiated due to substandard services provided in segregated settings (Crockett, 2014). Addi­ tionally, early proponents of educational inclusion contended that, when appropri­ ate, SWD should be educated alongside their nondisabled peers, and they established models for systematically integrating SWD into normal classroom settings (Deno, 1970; Reynolds, 1962).These right-to-education cases and early, placement-based notions of a continuum of alternative placements (CAP) ultimately contributed to the conceptualization of access as location within the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94–142). Misguided interpretations of educational access as location belied, for example, attempts to integrate SWD, such as mainstreaming and the Regular Education Initiative (Kavale & Forness, 2000). More recently, the emphasis of educational inclusion has shifted to a focus on the improvement of educational outcomes for SWD (Gilmour, Fuchs, & Wehby, 2019). This shift is the result of increased accountability standards that were intended to improve outcomes for all students. No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 fur­ thered the agenda of standards-based reform and required the inclusion of SWD in the testing of programs and in assessing and reporting of academic achievement (Thurlow & Quenemoen, 2011). By requiring states to report the performance of SWD on the same state assessments, both IDEA and NCLB (as well as the newest iteration of Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, ESSA) effectively ensured that SWD were included in the general education curriculum. As others have noted elsewhere (Fuchs et al., 2015; Gilmour et al., 2019), the requirement to disaggregate and separately report the achievement of SWD produces a de facto metric for determining whether these students are access­ ing the general education curriculum via appropriate services and supports. This metric is commonly referred to as the achievement gap. Although there are reasons that the interpretation of achievement gaps could lead to faulty assumptions about the proficiency of SWD and the value of special education (Kauffman, 2004), it is clear that, as an indicator of access to and progress within the general education curriculum, observed achievement gaps for SWD indicate that simple exposure to content does not lead to improvement for all. The changing focus of educational inclusion has also made clear that any defen­ sible definition of the term must prioritize effective and specialized instruction and supports (i.e., special education, cf. Hallahan & Kauffman, 1978) over placement in general education. That is, educational inclusion as a placement consideration “should not come at the expense of eliminating opportunities for intense, indi­ vidualized, and explicit skill/strategy instruction provided by specialists” (Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009, p. 201). This is supported first and foremost by the law (Bateman & Linden, 2012; Huefner, 2015). IDEA requires that SWD receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), but it also requires that, to the maxi­ mum extent appropriate, these students are educated with students without dis­ abilities.When it is not possible to provide an appropriate education in the general

48 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

education classroom, then the FAPE and least restrictive environment (LRE) provi­ sions ostensibly appear to contradict each other (Yell, 2019; see also chapter 10), and this has led to continued concerns regarding how LRE is practically interpreted and operationalized (Crockett, 2014).Yet, legislation and litigation have made clear that it is the provision of FAPE that should ultimately guide placement decisions, not the other way around. Procedurally and substantively correct decisions will balance FAPE with the preference for educating SWD in the general education classroom, selecting the most integrated setting that is compatible with the deliv­ ery of an appropriate education. Notably, the recent Endrew F. vs. Douglas County School District Supreme Court decision (2017) has raised the level of educational benefit associated with the FAPE standard, which could spur closer and more care­ ful examination of the relationship between inclusion in general education settings and the provision of an appropriate education to students with high incidence dis­ abilities (SWHID). Regardless, confusion about the law and flawed thinking about inclusion continue to present significant challenges.

Flawed thinking about inclusion and FAPE Flawed thinking has permeated the discourse surrounding educational inclusion, and it is important to recognize the negative impact flawed thinking has on efforts to better understand the relationship between inclusion and FAPE for SWHID. As mentioned above, the inclusion of SWD in general education settings has been influenced by accountability requirements for all students to have access to the same academic content and achievement standards (McLeskey, Rosenberg, & Wes­ tling, 2018). As a result, the percentage of SWD served in general education class­ rooms has risen steadily (Williamson, Hoppey, McLeskey, Bergmann, & Moore, 2019). Specifically, according to the 2019 report on the Condition of Education, the percentage of all students ages 6–21 served under IDEA who spent most of the school day (i.e., 80% or more of their time) inside general classes in regular schools increased from 47% in fall 2000 to 63% in fall 2017 (McFarland et al., 2019).This trend has been independently confirmed for SWHID (McLeskey, Landers, Wil­ liamson, & Hoppey, 2012). Although SWD have increasingly had access to general education classes, uncer­ tainty and concern about whether SWHID are accessing FAPE have persisted (e.g., Brigham, Ahn, Stride, & McKenna, 2016; Calhoon, Berkeley, & Scanlon, 2019; Crockett, Filippi, & Morgan, 2012; Gilmour, 2018a; Zigmond et al., 2009). Evi­ dence of a widespread failure to ensure FAPE includes research documenting the ongoing “abysmal” academic performance of these students (Fuchs, Fuchs, McMas­ ter, & Lemons, 2018). Fuchs and colleagues characterize the large-scale failure to provide instruction that optimizes educational outcomes for SWD as a “failure by educators to come to their educational rescue” (p. 129). One might think that the injustice and harmfulness of this situation would precipitate a great outcry, yet, in terms of scale, visibility, and activity, advocacy for FAPE seems to pale in compari­ son to advocacy for inclusion.

Inclusion and general education

49

Even more disheartening is the sharp criticism directed at those who voice concerns about whether special education may be to some degree sacrificing FAPE on the altar of inclusion. Researchers who prioritize concerns about effective special education over inclusion have been accused of ableism (e.g., Schifter & Hehir, 2018), but flawed ways of thinking about inclusion may be more likely to perpetuate ableism in the form of educational neglect, particu­ larly of students with LD and EBD. Specifically, three flawed ways of thinking about inclusion could contribute to neglectful attitudes and behavior toward ensuring the provision of effective special education to SWHID. These are (a) ignoring the inadequacies and limitations of research on the effectiveness of inclusion; (b) mischaracterizing and underestimating of the special educational needs of SWHID; and, (c) insufficiently considering a lifespan perspective on inclusion.

Ignoring inadequacies and limitations of inclusion research Flawed thinking about research on the effectiveness of inclusion may contribute to an overall failure to speak and act decisively enough on behalf of effective special education (FAPE) for SWHID. Ignoring the substantial methodologi­ cal limitations of this predominantly correlational research (see Gilmour, 2018b; Zigmond, 2003, for discussion) has allowed some inclusion advocates to con­ vince themselves and others that making general education the location where SWHID receive special education services sufficiently improves student out­ comes and therefore is an adequate response to the FAPE requirement (for criti­ cal evaluations of this view, see Brigham et al., 2016; Calhoon et al., 2019). Such conclusions have been rightfully characterized as “unwarranted, irresponsible, and unhelpful” (Kauffman, Anastasiou, Badar, Travers, & Wiley, 2016; see also chapter 7). In addition to fully acknowledging methodological limitations and their impli­ cations for interpreting findings, future inclusion research must move beyond a nar­ row focus on location and rigorously identify and test the specific mechanisms and variables (student, teacher, classroom, school, instruction, behavior management, implementation models) that explain any positive or negative outcomes associated with placement in general education (Lemons,Vaughn,Wexler, Kearns, & Sinclair, 2018; McKenna, Solis, Brigham, & Adamson, 2019; Simpson, 2004). Such research would be difficult—but not impossible—to conduct and would demonstrate genu­ ine concern for the instructional outcomes experienced by SWHID taught mostly or entirely in general education settings. Finally, inclusion advocates should refrain from claiming that not yet validated approaches (e.g., differentiated instruction, universal design for learning; Sailor, 2015;Wilson, 2017) effectively meet the special educational needs of all or even most SWHID in general education (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2015). Advocating the use of unproven practices denotes a lack of serious­ ness about understanding whether, how, and under what conditions inclusion can effectively meet the needs of SWHID.

50 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

Mischaracterizing students with high-incidence disabilities and their needs Another example of flawed thinking that may deflect or dilute concern about effective special education for SWHID is the misconception that the impairments experienced by these students are typically mild, readily addressed in general educa­ tion, and not truly special or exceptional because identifying them requires judg­ ment (e.g., Schifter & Hehir, 2018).These claims do not stand up to serious scrutiny (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2018; Kauffman, Hallahan, Pullen, & Badar, 2018; Landrum, Wiley, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2013). The notion that high-incidence disabilities are always “mild” ignores the significant difficulties many SWHID experience in school. For example, SWHID are significantly more likely to experience very low academic achievement, grade retention, disciplinary exclusions, course failures, and failure on high-stakes tests (e.g., Bradley, Doolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008; Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; Fuchs et al., 2018; Gilmour, Fuchs, & Wehby, 2019;Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, & Sumi, 2005). Especially alarming are high rates of school dropout for students with LD (nearly one in four; Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005) and EBD (1 in 2; Bradley et al., 2008;Wagner et al., 2005). Dropping out of high school is associated with a wide range of negative adult outcomes (Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2016) and likely contributes to the poor post-school and lifespan outcomes that disproportionately impact SWHID.

Insufficiently considering a lifespan perspective on inclusion If the goal of inclusion is to ensure the fullest possible participation of SWHID as valued members of society, then inclusion advocates must make the provision of effective special education the first concern, ahead of concerns about the place where special education is delivered. Why this is so can only be understood if we consider the long-term societal exclusion experienced by large numbers of SWHID across the lifespan. For example, post-school outcomes for students with EBD include higher rates of unemployment, criminality/arrest, poverty, and mental health/substance abuse disorders, as well as lower wages, less participation in post­ secondary education, and less connection to the community (Bradley et al., 2008; Erskine et al., 2016;Wagner & Newman, 2015). Students with LD are half as likely to attend college as their non-disabled peers and are less likely to complete college (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; McLaughlin, Speirs, & Shenassa, 2014). In addition, as adults, students with LD are more likely to be unemployed, earn less money, and have higher rates of involvement with the criminal justice system (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; McLaughlin et al., 2014). SWHID living in poverty are at the highest risk for negative adult outcomes (e.g., Erskine et al., 2016; McLaughlin et al., 2014). From a lifespan perspective, it is clear that the most urgent work of inclusion is altering, to the greatest extent possible, the negative educational and developmental

Inclusion and general education

51

trajectories (and the exclusion associated with them) experienced by SWHID. Thus, ensuring the provision of special education that alters these trajectories must come first in our thinking and acting on behalf of these students, with placement in general education an important related legal and moral consideration. Clear thinking about these issues cannot be accomplished if we misinterpret or misrep­ resent research on the effectiveness of inclusion, diminish or dismiss realities related to high-incidence disabilities, or fail to fully appreciate the lifelong consequences that are at stake for these students.What is needed is systematic investigation of the conditions under which the special educational needs of SWHID can and cannot be effectively and appropriately met in general education settings. In the next part of this chapter, we outline considerations for conducting this type of systematic investigation. We begin by identifying some essential special education practices known to benefit SWHID.

What is effective special education for students with high-incidence disabilities? Given our definition, a necessary starting point for systematically investigating effec­ tive inclusion for SWHID is identifying special education practices that, according to the best available research evidence, maximize positive educational outcomes for these students.That is, we need to consider what practices constitute effective special education before we examine their implementation in general education settings. A detailed synthesis of these practices is beyond the scope of this chapter (see chapter 4). Instead, we summarize several essential special education practices for SWHID in two areas—improving academic outcomes (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2018; McLeskey, Maheady, Billingsley, Brownell, & Lewis, 2019; Pullen & Hallahan, 2015; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2015) and improving social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes (Simpson, Peterson, & Smith, 2011; Sutherland, Conroy, McLeod, Kunemund, & McKnight, 2019; Zaheer et al., 2019).

Special education practices that improve academic outcomes SWHID typically exhibit significant deficits in one or more areas of academic achievement (Fletcher et al., 2018; Landrum et al., 2013). Often overlooked is the considerable heterogeneity in academic functioning within the categories of LD (Fletcher et al., 2018) and EBD (e.g., Wiley, Siperstein, Bountress, Forness, & Brigham, 2008). This heterogeneity indicates a need for a continuum of special­ ized and individualized academic support, ranging from relatively minor accom­ modations within whole-group instruction to much more systematic, intensive, and sustained approaches (Farmer et al., 2016; Lemons et al., 2018). It is important to note that most, if not all, SWHID do not make sufficient progress when provided only with accommodations or differentiated whole-group instruction (Fuchs et al., 2015; Maggin,Wehby, & Gilmour, 2016).We have long known that most SWHID do not make sufficient academic progress without targeted, intensive, specially

52 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

designed instruction in one or more areas of academic learning (Maggin et al., 2016; Swanson & Deshler, 2003;Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). Our focus here, then, is on specially designed academic instruction. The elements that are specialized in specially designed instruction are the con­ tent, delivery, and assessment of instruction (see Table 3.1; Archer & Hughes, 2011; Fletcher et al., 2018; McLeskey et al., 2019; Pullen & Hallahan, 2015; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2015). We begin with specialized assessment of instruction because it is arguably the most critical component of effective instruction for SWHID. Specifically, effective instruction requires frequent monitoring of academic pro­ gress using curriculum-based measurement to assess the impact of instruction on student learning. Teachers then make specific changes to teaching practices until students exhibit adequate rates and levels of progress (Jung, McMaster, Kunkel, Shin, & Stecker, 2018; Stecker & Fuchs, 2000). For SWHID, academic progress must be monitored frequently (typically once per week) using a reliable and valid curriculum-based measure (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Note that all students can benefit academically from good progress monitoring. However, what makes assessment of instruction special for SWHID is both its fre­ quency and the indispensable and central role it plays in ensuring effective instruc­ tion, which, as we have said, must always be most important. In addition to specialized assessment, Table 3.1 lists critical components of academic instruction that must be specialized in order to improve academic out­ comes for many or most SWHID (Fletcher et al., 2018; Pullen & Hallahan, 2015; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2015).As Pullen and Hallahan and Scruggs and Mastropieri point out, many of the instructional components identified here could also be used to improve instruction and outcomes for all students. But there are clear qualita­ tive and quantitative differences between instruction that is typically provided in general education and specially designed instruction.A major qualitative difference can be found in the content, or what is being taught. Most obviously, SWHID whose academic achievement is below grade level will need to be taught skills and knowledge that their peers have already mastered. Other qualitative differences in what is taught could include the cognitive strategies used to accomplish a learning task (Budin, Patti, & Rafferty, 2019) or the materials or curriculum used to teach the content (Alber-Morgan, Helton,Telesman, & Konrad, 2019). There are also quantitative differences between specially designed instruction and instruction that is typically offered in general education. For instance, group size differs. Small and homogeneous (versus large and heterogeneous) or one-to­ one group instruction is used not only because the instructional content may dif­ fer but also to quantitatively increase instructional elements like opportunities to respond, teacher feedback, practice, reinforcement, and so on (e.g., Elbaum,Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 1999, 2000; Rashotte, MacPhee, & Torgesen, 2001; Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2011; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). Changing the instructional setting to reduce distractions and (as appropriate) unnecessary embarrassment or stigma (Kauffman et al., 2016) could be viewed as either a qualitative or quantita­ tive change. Regardless, if SWHID are to achieve optimal academic outcomes, the

Curricula

Strategy-Based

Comprehensive

Enhanced

Explicit

Systematic

Controlled Difficulty

Individualized

Use of research-validated specialized curricula that incorporate some or all of the other specialized content components listed in this table

Content is focused on what individual student needs to learn next in the curriculum; key knowledge and skills are prioritized (e.g.,“big ideas”) Content is selected, designed, enhanced, and scaffolded to control difficulty and ensure efficient and effective student learning Content is sequenced logically/empirically according to principles of direct, explicit instruction, concept learning, and task analysis; designed to achieve shortand long-term learning goals Clear, precise, structured content; simple and direct language; proper terminology for the academic subject; carefully selected examples Content and instructional materials are enhanced to support student learning and concept formation (e.g., mnemonics, graphic organizers, content enhancement routines, dual coding, worked examples, vocabulary instruction) Content covers both basic skills/knowledge and integrated/complex skills/knowledge, across types/ domains of learning; transfer of learning is addressed Conspicuous step-by-step strategies for achieving learning tasks are embedded in instructional content

Specialized content

TABLE 3.1 Essential features of specially designed academic instruction

Setting

Duration/Frequency

Reinforcement/ Motivation/ Self-Regulation Practice

Feedback

Monitoring

Active Student Responding

Scaffolding

Explicit

Group Size

Teacher feedback (corrective, affirmative) is frequent, immediate, and clear; feedback provides information student needs to respond correctly Incorporation of self-regulation strategies and various types of positive reinforcement for engaging in and completing learning tasks High-quality guided, distributed, speeded, and cumulative practice to ensure knowledge and skill fluency/ maintenance Extended duration and frequency of instruction to ensure learning Instructional setting is changed as necessary to minimize distractions and/or minimize embarrassment or stigma

Student understanding is continuously monitored during instruction and through curriculum-based measurement; instructional delivery is modified as necessary to increase student learning

Clear, precise, structured delivery; simple and direct language; step-by-step demonstrations and modeling; focused and organized instructional routines Prompts and other scaffolds are provided to ensure high levels of correct student responding; prompts and scaffolds are faded over time based on successful acquisition/mastery of skills/knowledge Frequent student responses are elicited during instruction

Small group or one-to-one

Specialized delivery

54 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

content, delivery, and assessment of academic instruction must differ from typical general education instruction, at least in the ways we have described and listed here.

Special education practices that improve social/ emotional/behavioral outcomes SWHID often exhibit difficulties in social, emotional, and behavioral function­ ing (Stichter, Conroy, & Kauffman, 2008). These difficulties contribute to neg­ ative outcomes in school and after leaving school and must be addressed using research-based and specialized social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) program­ ming. Specialized SEB programming includes research-based practices in at least two areas—class-wide and individual SEB interventions and supports (Simpson et al., 2011; Sutherland et al., 2019;Walker & Gresham, 2013; Zaheer et al., 2019). Practices within each of these areas can be organized into five categories: 1 2 3 4 5

Prevention Teaching appropriate behavior Encouraging appropriate behavior Discouraging inappropriate behavior Assessment (see Table 3.2).

Again, specialized assessment and data-based decision making is critical to effec­ tive specialized SEB programming and must include both behavioral progress monitoring (Burke,Vannest, Davis, Davis, & Parker, 2009; McDaniel, Houchins, & Robinson, 2016; Zaheer et al., 2019) and functional behavior assessment (Gage, Lewis, & Stichter, 2012; Goh & Bambara, 2012). As with academic instruction, the “specialness” of specially designed SEB pro­ gramming lies in differences that are quantitative (intensity, frequency, duration), qualitative (consistency, structure, SEB skills targeted), or both.The degree and type of specialization that is required to achieve positive SEB outcomes for SWHID will depend on the nature and intensity of their individual SEB needs (Fletcher et al., 2018;Walker & Gresham, 2013). Once more, although all students can poten­ tially benefit from these SEB practices, providing them to and specializing them for SWHID is essential and will likely make the difference between educational success or failure for most of these students. To use an analogy, while all students may benefit in various ways from learning sign language, learning sign language is essential for students who need sign language to communicate (and thus to learn in school).The SEB practices (class-wide and individual) presented in Table 3.2 repre­ sent practices that are must be considered if our aim is to provide effective special education to SWHID, regardless of location (Simpson et al., 2011; Sutherland et al., 2019;Walker & Gresham, 2013; Zaheer et al., 2019).

Assessment

Discouraging Inappropriate Behavior

Encouraging Appropriate Behavior

Teaching Appropriate Behavior

Prevention

Physical arrangement of setting; routines, rules, procedures, schedules; positive teacher-student relationships; active supervision; home-school communication; effective instruction Explicit teaching of behavioral expectations, using examples and non-examples, rehearsal, and practice; class-wide social skills instruction Teacher praise; contingent reinforcement systems for meeting expectations; behavioral momentum; precorrection; offering choices Effective reprimands/redirecting; planned ignoring; continuum of planned consequences for inappropriate behavior (e.g., response cost, time out from reinforcement, positive practice) Class-wide (e.g., discipline referrals; data tools)

Specialized Class-Wide Interventions and Supports

Individual strategies (extinction, planned consequences, assessment-based)

Discouraging Inappropriate Behavior

Assessment

Individual progress monitoring; functional behavior assessment

Individual/intensive instruction (self­ management; emotion regulation; social skills, replacement behavior); assessmentbased Individual reinforcement systems (e.g., contracts, token economies, functionally equivalent, assessment-based)

Teaching Appropriate Behavior

Encouraging Appropriate Behavior

Individual antecedent/setting event interventions; assessment-based

Prevention

Specialized Individual SEB Interventions and Supports

TABLE 3.2 Essential Features of Specially Designed Social, Emotional, and Behavioral (SEB) Programming

56 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

Individualization and effective special education The extent to which academic instruction and SEB programming must be special­ ized is dependent on the special educational needs of the individual student.Thus, individual student needs must dictate the design and delivery of special education, and specific student outcomes (progress toward appropriate and meaningful goals) should determine whether special education is sufficiently specialized.We turn our attention next to considerations for empirically investigating the provision of effec­ tive special education to SWHID in general education settings.

Empirical integrity and educational inclusion Specialized instructional practices and supports are not a panacea, but it is reason­ able to assume that their use will more reliably result in educational improvements for SWHID than their absence. Yet, it is a challenge to determine how best to integrate specialized practices and supports in general education settings without evidence that they can be effectively delivered there.To be fair, evidence support­ ing the use of specific academic and behavioral practices has not often matured to the point of knowing where, how, and under what conditions they are effective. How­ ever, clarifying well-supported strategies for integrating and appropriately serv­ ing SWHID demands a scientific agenda that reaches beyond rhetoric about the social policy legacy of inclusion and assumptions about its success. In other words, establishing that educational inclusion does in fact work to improve outcomes of students with disabilities is an empirical issue and thus is not divorced from the obli­ gations of rigorous methodological evaluation. Simpson (2004) emphasized that the presumptive benefits of educational inclusion lack scientific support and validation (see also chapter 7). In fact, he and others have noted an altogether disconcerting lack of empirical research that has (a) clarified inclusion as a legitimate scientific term, (b) addressed important student outcomes, and (c) established generality of relationships between inclusion-related variables and those outcomes. Building upon Simpson’s argument, we submit that the practice of educational inclusion requires scientific study that addresses issues related to faulty comparisons, procedural infidelity, and insufficient intensity. Below, we discuss the importance of each issue as related to building scientific knowledge that yields guidance for serving SWHID in general education.

Faulty comparisons To determine whether educational inclusion results in meaningful academic and social benefits for SWHID, researchers have relied on evaluations pitting placement options as value comparisons. Broadly, this research posits that students do X better when in location A than location B and relies on the assumption that educational ben­ efit is delivered as a function of location. In such evaluations, the categorical nature of place as the dominant aspect of comparison ignores the endogeneity of services,

Inclusion and general education

57

rendering any significant variability in instruction and services delivered within each setting indistinguishable from error.These studies have generally not yielded a consensus regarding inclusion’s relationship to academic improvement for SWD. That is, some students will obtain better achievement results in inclusive class­ rooms (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Newman et al., 2011; Schifter, 2016;Theobald, Goldhaber, Gratz, & Holden, 2017), while others fare better when provided with part-time resource support (see, e.g., Marston, 1996; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). We have noted that appropriately specialized instruction and supports are theoreti­ cally distinct from the place in which they are delivered (assuming that FAPE can be effectively delivered within a variety of LREs). Place comparisons, then, estab­ lish faulty associations by failing to consider the variability of specialized instruc­ tion and supports within each setting (e.g., quality of instruction; McLeskey & Waldron). Faulty comparisons are also a result of researcher’s neglect to consider and measure educationally important differences between students served in inclu­ sive versus specialized classrooms. Selection bias is arguably one of the most dif­ ficult methodological concerns to address when conducting research on SWD. Research findings on special education can be especially difficult to interpret due to selection bias, as SWDs differ from students without disabilities on many poten­ tially confounding characteristics (e.g., race, sex, socio-economic status, family involvement, neighborhood quality, home literacy practices) (Sullivan, Artiles, & Hernandez-Saca, 2015).Therefore, it is difficult to reliably determine whether dif­ ferences between two groups are due to the services received or to the wide array of contextual factors that are associated with an increased likelihood of special education participation. Within the broad set of students with a specific disability, Gilmour (2018a) noted that an inherent selection bias also exists due to the fact that more able students (those with greater academic ability or fewer behavioral problems) are more likely to be educated in inclusive settings. As a result, differences between students who are placed in different types of settings can influence estimates of the association between general education placement and student outcomes. Recently, researchers have used propensity score analysis to reduce selection bias concerns when analyz­ ing outcomes related to inclusive placement (see e.g., Rojewski, Lee, & Gregg, 2015). Such studies will contribute critically to the understanding of place values for SWHID.

Procedural infidelity Cook, Landrum,Tankersley, and Kauffman (2003) highlight the fact that approaches may be rendered ineffective or counterproductive if not implemented with ade­ quate fidelity. As such, documenting treatment fidelity is critical for researchers trying to make data-based and causal inferences regarding student outcomes.Treat­ ment fidelity can be broadly defined as the degree to which interventions are implemented as designed (National Research Council, 2002) and refers to the

58 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

“strategies that monitor and enhance the accuracy and consistency of an interven­ tion to ensure it is implemented as planned and that each component is delivered in a comparable manner to all study participants over time” (Smith, Daunic, & Taylor, 2007, p. 121). As such, treatment fidelity can be differentiated into two pri­ mary categories: (a) structural fidelity (i.e., adherence and exposure) and (b) procedural fidelity (i.e., program differentiation, quality of delivery, and responsiveness; Dane & Schneider, 1998; Mowbray, Holter,Teague, & Bybee, 2003). Educational inclusion poses significant challenges as an independent variable for which structural and procedural fidelity are assessed. In part, it is a definitional issue (see Kauffman, 2005)—insofar as inclusion is operationalized in a number of different ways (e.g., percent time in general education classroom, access to a com­ mon curriculum, included in state assessments), a lack of agreement regarding its connection to student outcomes will persist. As we have noted, inclusion has tra­ ditionally been equated with education that occurs within the general education classroom. For purposes of evaluation, this definition resolves issues concerning structural fidelity—investigators can, if they desire, assess adherence and exposure by simply noting whether and for how long instruction and services occur in gen­ eral education.Yet assessing the procedural fidelity of inclusion as location presents a conundrum: How does one differentiate, assess quality, or determine responsive­ ness to a placement? Alternatively, it is perhaps more reasonable to define and assess the procedural fidelity of an inclusive practice, such as instructional differentiation, or an inclu­ sive delivery model, such as co-teaching. Differentiated instruction, for example, can be defined: supplying instructional methods and materials that are matched to student’s individual needs (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Marshak, 2012). It can also be operationalized, as exhibited by Tomlinson’s (2001) guidelines for differentiating instruction in inclusive classrooms (i.e., clarify all key concepts and generaliza­ tions; use assessment to extend, not only measure, instruction; include critical and creative thinking in lesson design; engage every student; and provide a balance between assigned and selected tasks).As such, it is realistic to assume that structural fidelity components could be feasibly assessed. However, just as with inclusionas-location, assessing procedural fidelity appears to be an insurmountable issue due to the lack of core process components and quality indicators. Conceivably, this is the reason that studies of the effectiveness of differentiated instruction have reported only structural elements of fidelity (e.g., Simpkins, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009). Research regarding the effectiveness of co-teaching is similarly limited (Muraw­ ski & Swanson, 2001; Solis,Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). Scruggs, Mastro­ pieri, and McDuffie (2007) suggested that the model was being used less effectively than it could be, particularly regarding the (lack of) a role being played by special education teachers. This again points to a crisis of procedural infidelity: Differen­ tiation of tested versus comparison models, implementation quality, and student responsiveness cannot be feasibly assessed without a clearer delineation of what it is and how it should proceed.

Inclusion and general education

59

Insufficient intensity Treatment intensity, also referred to as treatment strength, is an important consid­ eration for determining under what conditions educational practices or approaches should work (Codding & Lane, 2015). Defined as the likelihood that a given intervention will change a problem situation (Gresham, 1991), it is presumed that more intense interventions will have a greater impact on a targeted concern. Early conceptions (Yeaton & Sechrest, 1981) considered intervention intensity to be a dimension of measurement on par with those of effectiveness and procedural fidel­ ity, whereby the interaction of these three dimensions formed a complete under­ standing of an intervention’s range. Duhon and colleagues (2009) suggest that two classes of intervention intensity exist: General education interventions that “involve minor instructional adaptations that can be administered in the general educa­ tion setting” (p. 104) and intensive interventions that are provided in “either one­ on-one or small group settings and are intended to be similar in time and effort relative to special education programming” (p. 104). By and large, interventions of the first type have been found to be inadequate to appropriately address the learn­ ing and behavioral issues of students with LD and EBD in general education. As Lemons and colleagues (2018) noted, instructional accommodations and instruc­ tional differentiation required by IEPs are typically “underspecified” as delivered by general educators (p. 133). Others (McIntosh,Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993;Wexler, Mitchell, Clancy, & Silverman, 2016) have reported similar failures to provide individualized instruction and supports in general education. Lemons and colleagues note that the predominant service delivery models lack sufficient inten­ sity to meet the needs of many students with LD and that to appropriately address their needs, specialized instruction and supports based on data-based individualiza­ tion should be provided as a mechanism to enhance intensity within all phases of a continuum of services. Interventions of the second type (i.e., intensive interventions) are well aligned with the mission of special education to individualize instruction based on an individual student’s needs. Increasing intensity of already intensive interventions is accomplished by varying explicitness, intensity, pace of instruction, size of the instruction group, duration and frequency of instruction, immediacy of corrective feedback, and appropriate reinforcement of learned skills (Mellard, McKnight, & Jordan, 2010). It is not the case that interventions intended to produce positive outcomes for SWHID are always adequate (Swanson & Vaughn, 2010). In fact, some have called for increasing intensity of remedial reading programs or basic math interventions through varying the type and number of treatment components (Codding, Burns, & Lukito, 2011;Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010) or including supplemental, out-of-level instruction (Fuchs et al., 2015). When applied to the evaluation of educational inclusion, the issue of inter­ vention intensity becomes essentially an implementation concern. Can appropri­ ately intensive, specialized interventions be delivered in general education settings? What parameters must be intensified to produce desired outcomes? How are these

60 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

parameters affected by the nature of the instructional location? It will be necessary to answer these questions so that specialized instruction can be appropriately cali­ brated to match each student’s needs.

Concluding remarks The ideological divide between those who proffer educational inclusion as Hob­ son’s choice and those for whom inclusion’s scientific treatment is both warranted and necessary is not easily resolved. It is difficult to assuage fears that, by examin­ ing inclusion with more empirical scrutiny, we will devalue the social justice and equity concerns that accompany it as a civil right.Yet, the substantive obligation under IDEA to is to enable SWD to make progress in the light of their individual circumstances. To fairly comply, we have to understand how practice and place can effectively intersect, despite a rather substantial disconnect that exists between the conceptualization of inclusion and its implementation. Put differently, the idea that appropriate special education for SWHID can be delivered in the general education environment has practical limitations that require more research.With­ out evidence that specialized instruction and practices can be effective, used with procedural fidelity, and be appropriately intensified to match students’ needs within general education, the successful inclusion of SWHID in general education will remain a bootless errand.

References Alber-Morgan, S. R., Helton, M. R., Telesman, A. O., & Konrad, M. (2019). Adapt cur­ riculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals. In J. McLeskey, L. Maheady, B. Billingsley, M.T. Brownell, & T. J. Lewis (Eds.), High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms (pp. 145–156). New York, NY: Routledge. Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford. Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (2012). Better IEPs: How to development legally correct and education useful programs (5th ed.).Verona,WI:Attainment. Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with dis­ abilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413. Bradley, R., Doolittle, J., & Bartolotta, R. (2008). Building on the data and adding to the discussion:The experiences and outcomes of students with emotional disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(1), 4–23. Brigham, F. J.,Ahn, S.Y., Stride,A. N., & McKenna, J.W. (2016). FAPE-accompli: Misapplica­ tion of the principles of inclusion and students with EBD. In General and special education inclusion in an age of change: Impact on students with disabilities (pp. 31–47). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Budin, S., Patti,A. L., & Rafferty, L.A. (2019).Teaching cognitive and meta-cognitive strate­ gies to support learning and independence. In J. McLeskey, L. Maheady, B. Billingsley, M. T. Brownell, & T. J. Lewis (Eds.), High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms (pp. 181–196). New York, NY: Routledge.

Inclusion and general education

61

Burke, M. D.,Vannest, K., Davis, J., Davis, C., & Parker, R. (2009). Reliability of frequent retrospective behavior ratings for elementary school students with EBD. Behavioral Dis­ orders, 34(4), 212–222. Calhoon, M. B., Berkeley, S., & Scanlon, D. (2019).The erosion of FAPE for students with LD. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 6–13. Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions:A component analysis. Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 36–47. Codding, R. S., & Lane, K. L. (2015). A spotlight on treatment intensity: An important and often overlooked component of intervention inquiry. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24(1), 1–10. Cook, B. G., Landrum,T. J.,Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2003). Bringing research to bear on practice: Effecting evidence-based instruction for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(4), 345–361. Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Crockett, J. B. (2014). Reflections on the concept of the least restrictive environment in special education. In Special education past, present, and future: Perspectives from the field (pp. 39–61). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Crockett, J. B., Filippi, E. A., & Morgan, C. L. (2012). Included, but underserved: Rediscov­ ering special education for students with learning disabilities. Learning About Learning Disabilities, 405–436. Dane, A.V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23–45. Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229–237. Duhon, G. J., Mesmer, E. M., Atkins, M. E., Greguson, L. A., & Olinger, E. S. (2009). Quan­ tifying intervention intensity: A systematic approach to evaluating student response to increasing intervention frequency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 101–118. Elbaum, B.,Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S.W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65(3), 399–415. Elbaum, B.,Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A metaanalysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). Erskine, H. E., Norman, R. E., Ferrari, A. J., Chan, G. C., Copeland, W. E., Whiteford, H. A., & Scott, J. G. (2016). Long-term outcomes of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder:A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Acad­ emy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(10), 841–850. Farmer,T.W., Sutherland, K. S.,Talbott, E., Brooks, D. S., Norwalk, K., & Huneke, M. (2016). Special educators as intervention specialists: Dynamic systems and the complexity of intensifying intervention for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 24(3), 173–186. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. L., & Lemons, C. J. (2018). Students with disabilities’ abysmal school performance: An introduction to the special issue. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 127–130. Fuchs, L. S.,& Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation:A meta-analysis. Excep­ tional Children, 53(3), 199–208.

62 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L.,Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., & Jordan, N. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge? Exceptional Children, 81(2), 134–157. Gage, N.A., Lewis,T. J., & Stichter, J. P. (2012). Functional behavioral assessment-based inter­ ventions for students with or at risk for emotional and/or behavioral disorders in school: A hierarchical linear modeling meta-analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 37(2), 55–77. Gilmour, A. F. (2018a). Has inclusion gone too far? Weighing its effects on students with disabili­ ties, their peers, and teachers. Retrieved from www.educationnext.org/has-inclusion-gone­ too-far-weighing-effects-students-with-disabilities-peers-teachers/ Gilmour, A. F. (2018b). How can we make special education better without asking uncomforta­ ble questions? Retrieved from www.educationnext.org/how-can-we-improve-special­ education-withouth-asking-uncomfortable-questions-response-better-question/ Gilmour, A. F., Fuchs, D., & Wehby, J. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346. Goh,A. E., & Bambara, L. M. (2012). Individualized positive behavior support in school set­ tings: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 271–286. Gresham, F. M. (1991). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to inter­ vention. School Psychology Review, 20(1), 23. Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1978). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the educa­ tion of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 234–256. Huefner, D. S. (2015). Placements for special education students:The promise and the peril. In B. Bateman, J.W. Lloyd, & M.Tankersley (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Per­ sonal perspectives (pp. 215–230). New York, NY: Routledge. Jung, P. G., McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A. K., Shin, J., & Stecker, P. M. (2018). Effects of data­ based individualization for students with intensive learning needs:A meta-analysis. Learn­ ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 144–155. Kauffman, J. M. (2004). The President’s Commission and the devaluation of special educa­ tion. Education and Treatment of Children, 307–324. Kauffman, J. M. (2005).Waving to Ray Charles: Missing the meaning of disabilities. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 520–521. Kauffman, J. M.,Anastasiou, D., Badar, J.,Travers, J. C., & Wiley,A. L. (2016). Inclusive educa­ tion moving forward. In General and special education inclusion in an age of change: Roles of professionals involved (pp. 153–178). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education:What it is and why we need it. New York, NY: Routledge. Kauffman, J. M., Ward, D. M., & Badar, J. (2015). The delusion of full inclusion. In Con­ troversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities (pp. 91–106). New York, NY: Routledge. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279–296. Landrum,T. J.,Wiley,A. L.,Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). Is EBD “special”, and is “special education” an appropriate response? In The Sage handbook of emotional and behav­ ioral difficulties (pp. 69–81).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2016). A public health perspective on school dropout and adult outcomes:A prospective study of risk and protective factors from age 5 to 27 years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(6), 652–658.

Inclusion and general education

63

Lemons, C. J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Kearns, D. M., & Sinclair, A. C. (2018). Envisioning an improved continuum of special education services for students with learning dis­ abilities: Considering intervention intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 131–143. Maggin, D. M., Wehby, J. H., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Intensive academic interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders:An experimental framework. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 24(3), 138–147. Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service models for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 121–132. McDaniel, S. C., Houchins, D. E., & Robinson, C. (2016). The effects of check, connect, and expect on behavioral and academic growth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Dis­ orders, 24(1), 42–53. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., . . . Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019-144).Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144 McIntosh, R.,Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observation of stu­ dent with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261. McKenna, J.W., Solis, M., Brigham, F., & Adamson, R. (2019).The responsible inclusion of students receiving special education services for emotional disturbance: Unraveling the practice to research gap. Behavior Modification, 43(4), 587–611. McLaughlin, M. J., Speirs, K. E., & Shenassa, E. D. (2014). Reading disability and adult attained education and income: Evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study of a populationbased sample. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 374–386. McLeskey, J., Landers, E.,Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward edu­ cating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special Educa­ tion, 46(3), 131–140. McLeskey, J., Maheady, L., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M.T., & Lewis,T. J. (2019). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge. McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M. S., & Westling, D. L. (2018). Inclusion: Effective practices for all stu­ dents (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 48–57. Mellard, D., Mcknight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 217–225. Mowbray, C.T., Holter, M. C.,Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Develop­ ment, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315–340. Murawski,W., & Swanson, H. (2001).A meta-analysis of co-teaching research:Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258–267. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17226/10236. Newman, L.,Wagner, M., Huang,T., Shaver, D., Knokey,A. M.,Yu, J., . . . Cameto, R. (2011). Sec­ ondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities:A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2012–3000).Washing­ ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Special Education Research. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. Pullen, P. C., & Hallahan, D. P. (2015).What is special education instruction? In B. Bateman, J.W. Lloyd, & M.Tankersley (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Personal perspectives (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Routledge.

64 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group read­ ing instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quar­ terly, 24(2), 119–134. Reynolds, M. (1962). A framework for considering some issues in special education. Excep­ tional Children, 28, 367–370. Rojewski, J.W., Lee, I. H., & Gregg, N. (2015). Causal effects of inclusion on postsecondary education outcomes of individuals with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(4), 210–219. Sailor,W. (2015).Advances in schoolwide inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Educa­ tion, 36(2), 94–99. Schifter, L. A. (2016). Using survival analysis to understand graduation of students with dis­ abilities. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 479–496. Schifter, L. A., & Hehir, T. (2018). The better question: How can we improve inclusive education? Response to ‘has inclusion gone too far?” Retrieved from www. www.educationnext.org/ better-question-how-can-we-improve-inclusion-education-response-has-inclusion­ gone-too-far/ Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2015). What makes special education special? In B. Bateman, J. W. Lloyd, & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Personal perspectives (pp. 22–36). New York, NY: Routledge. Scruggs,T. E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Marshak, L. (2012). Peer-mediated instruction in inclu­ sive secondary social studies learning: Direct and indirect learning effects. Learning Dis­ abilities Research and Practice, 27, 12–20. Scruggs,T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Coteaching in inclusive classrooms:A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416. Simpkins, P. M., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differentiated curriculum enhancements in inclusive 5th grade science classes. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 300–308. Simpson, R. L. (2004). Inclusion of students with behavior disorders in general education settings: Research and measurement issues. Behavioral Disorders, 30(1), 19–31. Simpson, R. L., Peterson, R. L., & Smith, C. R. (2011). Critical educational program com­ ponents for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Science, policy, and prac­ tice. Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 230–242. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers:A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26. Smith, S.W., Daunic, A. P., & Taylor, G. G. (2007).Treatment fidelity in applied educational research: Expanding the adoption and application of measures to ensure evidence-based practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 121–134. Solis, M.,Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruc­ tion: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 498–511. Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(3), 128–134. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. Stichter, J. P., Conroy, M. A., & Kauffman, J. M. (2008). An introduction to students with highincidence disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sullivan, A. L., Artiles, A. J., & Hernandez-Saca, D. I. (2015). Addressing special education inequity through systemic change: Contributions of ecologically based organizational consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25, 129–147.

Inclusion and general education

65

Sutherland, K. S., Conroy, M. A., McLeod, B. D., Kunemund, R., & McKnight, K. (2019). Common practice elements for improving social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes of young elementary school students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 76–85. Swanson, E. A., & Vaughn, S. (2010). An observation study of reading instruction provided to elementary students with learning disabilities in the resource room. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 481–492. Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Con­ verting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135. Theobald, R., Goldhaber, D., Gratz, T., & Holden, K. L. (2017). Career and technical educa­ tion, inclusion, and postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities (CEDR Working Paper 2017). Seattle,WA: University of Washington. Thurlow, M. L., & Quenemoen, R. F. (2011). Standards-based reform and students with dis­ abilities. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 134– 146). New York, NY: Routledge. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.).Alex­ andria,VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010).Why intensive interventions are neces­ sary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432–444. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2000). A search for the underlying message in the intervention research on learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114. Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein, M. H., & Sumi, W. C. (2005). The children and youth we serve: A national picture of the characteristics of students with emotional disturbances receiving special education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(2), 79–96. Wagner, M., & Newman, L. (2015). Longitudinal post-high school outcomes of young adults with learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders. In Transition of youth and young adults.Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 28, pp. 31–61). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school:A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A Report from the National Lon­ gitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED494935.pdf Walker, H. M., & Gresham, F. M. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of evidence-based practices for emotional and behavioral disorders:Applications in schools. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561. Wexler, J., Mitchell, M.A., Clancy, E., & Silverman, R. D. (2016).An investigation of literacy practices in science classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficul­ ties, 33, 258–277. Wiley,A. L., Siperstein, G. N., Bountress, K. E., Forness, S. R., & Brigham, F. J. (2008). School context and the academic achievement of students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 33(4), 198–210. Williamson, P., Hoppey, D., McLeskey, J., Bergmann, E., & Moore, H. (2019).Trends in LRE placement rates over the past 25 years. Journal of Special Education. Retrieved from https:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022466919855052 Wilson, J. D. (2017). Reimagining disability and inclusive education through universal design for learning. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/ view/5417/4650 Yeaton,W. H., & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clini­ cal Psychology, 49(2), 156–167.

66 Brian R. Barber and Andrew L. Wiley

Yell, M. L. (2019). The law and special education (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Zaheer, I., Maggin, D., McDaniel, S., McIntosh, K., Rodriguez, B. J., & Fogt, J. B. (2019). Implementation of promising practices that support students with emotional and behav­ ioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 44(2), 117–128. Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education ser­ vices? Is one place better than another? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 193–199. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino,V. (2009).What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189–204.

4 A SCIENCE OF INSTRUCTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Justin T. Cooper, Terrance M. Scott, and Todd Whitney

In his seminal article, Dunn (1968) expressed concern that special educators were “ill-prepared” and “ineffective” in teaching students with disabilities (SWD) and suggested a more inclusive setting should be available for students with learning and behavior disorders if they were to be successful.Years later, he argued that the responsibility for educating SWD, at least those with relatively mild disabilities, should be with general education teachers, not special education teachers (Dunn, 1983). Whether you agree or disagree with this view, 50 years later, we are see­ ing that this has become the reality. Data from the US Department of Education (USDE) indicated the percentage of public-school children, ages 3–21, receiving special education services increased from 8.3% in 1976–77 to 13.2% in 2015–16 (USDE, 2019).Additionally, in 2017, 91.2% of SWD (ages 6–21) spent at least some portion of their day in a general education classroom, and 63.4% spent 80% or more of their day in a general education classroom (USDE, 2019). In comparison, although slightly more SWD (ages 6–21) spent at least some portion of their day in a general education classroom (94.1%) in 1989, considerably fewer SWD spent 80% or more of their day in that setting (31.7%; USDE, 2019). Although more SWD have been included in the general education setting in recent years, many general education teachers have expressed concern that they lack the training and/or sup­ port to teach them effectively (Heflin & Bullock, 1999; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Lopes, Monteiro, Sil, Rutherford, & Quinn, 2004). Dunn also expressed his belief that if learners fail, then their failure must be viewed as a consequence of inappropriate instruction (Dunn, 1968). In other words, teachers have a great influence on student outcomes, whether that influence be positive or negative. One could argue that there is nothing more powerful in pre­ dicting positive student outcomes than the provision of effective instruction. If we subscribe to this notion, it is important to examine at least three questions:

68 Justin T. Cooper et al.

1 2 3

What is the science of effective instruction, and how can it be implemented in both general and special education settings? Within this science, what essential instructional strategies are necessary when considering SWD? What barriers impact our ability to prepare future general and special educa­ tors to implement these effective instructional practices?

This chapter explores the science behind effective instruction, critical instruc­ tional practices for SWD, the barriers to implementing effective instruction in inclusive settings, and implications for educator preparation programs given the current state of the field of education, special and general.

What is effective instruction? In general, effective instruction involves the teacher bringing about intended out­ comes through the implementation of research-based instructional practices. In this sense, it involves a “process-product” approach in which overt teacher behav­ iors (i.e., process) affect student achievement (i.e., product). For example, as a teacher, if my intended outcome is for my student to learn to read, I will imple­ ment those instructional practices that have been identified by research to be the most effective for teaching reading. Fortunately, educational research dating back to the 1970s has consistently identified the instructional practices that are most predictive of student achievement in general education classrooms (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986; Engelmann & Carnine, 1982; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). And recent research has substantiated what we already know by adding more compre­ hensive empirical support to the body of evidence supporting a science of effective instruction (e.g., Engelmann, 1997; Engelmann & Carnine, 2011; Hattie, 2009).

A science of effective instruction Although it seems trivial to consider the importance of effective instruction, loud and prominent voices can still be heard extolling the virtues of a more hands-off or self-directed learning model. However, our best response is based both on logic and by pointing to the facts made apparent through decades of rigorous research. First, instruction that leads to successful learning is a great predictor of future suc­ cess. In fact, what teachers report to be among the most pressing and challeng­ ing problems associated with SWD (e.g., aggression, insubordination, disruption; Westling, 2010) have been shown to abate when instruction creates higher rates of objective student success (Greer-Chase, Rhodes, & Kellam, 2002; McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner, 2006). Unfortunately, evidence very strongly suggests that stu­ dents displaying these challenges tend to receive less rather than more direct and effective instruction (Scott, Alter, & Hirn, 2011; Stichter et al., 2009; Sutherland, Lewis-Palmer, Stichter, & Morgan, 2008).

A science of instruction SWD implications 69

Direct instruction Debate continues in higher education regarding the most basic tenets of effective instruction (Kim, 2008;Taber, 2010). Nevertheless, over 50 years of intensive scien­ tific research on teaching and learning has revealed a set of instructional methods, protocols, and strategies that provide the highest possible probability of student suc­ cess.The largest ever federally funded research project in education was undertaken in 1967. Over the course of 18 years and at total cost of over 1 billion dollars, the USDE selected 9 national intervention agents (mostly universities and independ­ ent laboratories) to provide direct intervention with 75,000 students in schools all across the nation.The stated purpose of this study was to identify instructional practices leading to improved academic, cognitive, and affective student outcomes in reading and math as determined by independent evaluators. The results of this study were unequivocal; the Direct Instruction group produced the largest gains in each of the domains and was the only group to have positive gains across all areas (Engelmann, Becker, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988).That is, in terms of academic, cognitive, and affective domains (i.e., self-esteem), Direct Instruction clearly out­ performed all other models. Direct Instruction with a capital DI refers to a specific programming methodol­ ogy while the lower case di used herein refers to the general principles of direct instruction.Those general principles include seven basic steps (Hattie, 2009): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The teacher drives the lesson with clear idea of intended outcomes. Success criteria are established up front, prior to instruction. The teacher builds interest for the student. Lesson presentation is driven by a science, for example, selection and ordering. The teacher guides student practice to facilitate high rates of success. The teacher provides closure of the lesson and summarized learning. The teacher oversees student engaging in independent practice.

Hattie’s (2009) Visible Learning reported the outcomes of large-scale metaanalyses of educational practices as they relate to student achievement. In Hat­ tie’s analyses, direct instruction produced the largest effects of any instructional approach (effect sizes in parentheses): direct instruction (.59), inductive teaching (.33), inquiry-based teaching (.31), and problem-based learning (.15). Moreover, in terms of literacy, phonics instruction (i.e., breaking word attack skills instruction into teachable parts) showed an effect size of .60, while the purely constructiv­ ist whole language method showed an effect size of .06. For these reasons, the National Reading Panel’s (2000) recommendations for effective literacy instruction included teaching (a) an awareness of sounds in words (phonemic awareness); (b) an ability to decode words by their component sounds (phonics); (c) vocabulary development through teacher-led discussions; and (d–e) strategies for increasing both fluency and comprehension.

70 Justin T. Cooper et al.

In short, among those who espouse science as the best method for answering questions about effectiveness and meaningful change, there is little debate about what constitutes effective instruction (Stockard,Wood, Coughlin, & Khoury, 2018). In fact, one might think, after such a clear outcome, that the principles of direct instruction would have been widely adopted in schools across the nation. Sadly, this has not been the case, as teachers in general report not trusting educational sci­ ence (Broekkamp & van Hout-Wolters, 2007; see also Engelmann, 2007; Kauffman, 2011).This is perhaps the result of this seed being planted during their preservice training as institutions across the nation have continued to train teachers to use instructional methods that, while antithetical to the principles of direct instruc­ tion, better conform to their preferred constructivist paradigm (Savery & Duffy, 1994; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000). In fact, even special education has not fully embraced these principles, as a recent survey of special education training programs in the US Midwest found that 65% did not teach about active supervision and student engagement, and 19% did not cover the importance of positive teacher feedback and encouragement (Oliver & Reschly, 2010). Within the constructivists’ camp, a frequent criticism of direct instruction has been that it is too rigid, robs teachers of their creativity (e.g., Sawyer, 2004), and fails to produce students that internalize or regulate their own learning (e.g., Sze-Yeng & Hussain, 2010). Although evidence shows this is clearly not the case (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), it continues to be a common rationale for limiting these methods to SWD in isolated special education settings and excluding them from general education. As we discuss later, the problem is not that effective instruction cannot be delivered to a diverse group of learners in a general education classroom; rather, it is insufficient training or support for preservice and in-service teachers.

High-leverage practices: the keys to direct instruction Rather than focus on direct instruction from a paradigmatic perspective, we focus here on the specific strategies, or high-leverage practices, that compose a science of instruction.While a program may purport to be based generally on the principles of direct instruction, this broad term (di) can be unpacked to consider some of the specific practices that are known to be critical to learner success. An antiquated version of these practices has described effective instruction as occurring within a model-lead-test sequence.While there is a logic to that version, a more accurate description conceives of these keys as interacting throughout instruction so that the teacher is explicit and sets students up to be highly engaged with the content, allowing the teacher to provide feedback.

Explicit instruction The practice of being explicit is often confused with direct instruction itself. How­ ever, the term explicit in this context means far more than being overt and direct with instruction. Being explicit simply means that the teacher plans, develops, and

A science of instruction SWD implications 71

implements instruction in a thoughtful manner designed to maximize the probabil­ ity of student success.This involves components of the first five direct instruction steps outlined by Hattie (2009). For example, being explicit begins with setting a context for students by connecting the key rules and concepts of the lesson back to prior learning and finding ways to include authentic examples that are relevant to the lives of the students. In this way, explicit instruction considers cultural relevancy and presents students with examples that spark interest. In addition, when using explicit instruction, teachers provide clear explanations of content, expectations, and intended outcomes. The science of effective instruction provides clear recommendations for the presentation of instruction and prescribes not only how examples are selected for relevance but also how the key features of the content being taught require the teacher to consider specific examples and non-examples to clarify possible mis­ interpretations. While this can involve naturalistic examples, it is critical that the teacher carefully selects examples that show the range of positive examples, fol­ lowed by minimally different non-examples to enhance learner discrimination. There is a science to the most efficacious way for both selecting and sequencing instructional examples (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). For example, if we were to teach the concept of “dog” to a student who is completely naïve to this concept, we would want to show as many different dogs as possible so that the student sees the common features of all dogs.Then, when we show a minimally different nonexample, say a cat, we would want to point to the key features that discriminate a dog from a cat. Using a fish as a non-example does not allow the teacher to help the student make those discriminations. On the other hand, if we only relied on using naturalistic examples and every dog the student happened to run into while exploring his or her environment was a chihuahua, it is doubtful that the student would really have an accurate concept of what a dog is. A major component of explicit instruction is sometimes referred to as teacher clarity. This simply means that the teacher is careful to be direct and explicit in helping students to understand the keys to a given lesson. But creating a context for students, hooking them with authentic examples and the presentation of effec­ tive examples, complements this notion of explicit instruction. To be clear, being explicit is not a phase of instruction, nor does it operate in isolation from the other key elements of effective instruction. Rather, it must embrace and encourage both engagement and feedback to be effective. When considering SWD, the range of teaching examples, their sequencing, and the repetition that may be necessary may be considered an impediment to teaching in inclusive settings. Again, this is an obstacle to inclusion only to the degree that a teacher is willing and able to consider the necessary differentiation and incorporate it into their lessons.

Engagement In general, the probability of student success with instruction can be maximized by instructional practices that increase the degree to which students are engaged with

72 Justin T. Cooper et al.

the content (Brophy, 2006; Greenwood, Horton, & Utley, 2002). Teacher-created opportunities to respond (OTR) include questions, commands, or directions that set the occasion for the student to think and respond (i.e., students’ interaction with the curriculum).These curriculum-related prompts can be provided to either the group or an individual student and have been shown to be associated with improved academic and behavioral outcomes (Haydon, Mancil, & Van Loan, 2009; Kern & Clemens, 2007; Partin, Robertson, Maggin, Oliver, & Wehby, 2010). Research on OTR as a practice has shown that rates at or above three per minute are generally predictive of student engagement (Haydon et al., 2009; Partin et al., 2010; Sutherland,Alder, & Gunter, 2003). However, Scott, Hirn, and Cooper (2017) conducted over 7,000 classroom observations and found that most teachers typi­ cally provide students with OTR at rates well below this recommendation. Instead of the desired 3.0/minute, they found teachers at various levels to provide OTR at these levels: elementary (0.97/min.), middle school (0.69/min.), and high school (0.53/min.). More alarmingly, similar observations in special education resource classrooms (i.e., pullout) have repeatedly shown similar rates (Scott et al., 2011). Effective instruction is, at least in part, a set of practices, strategies, or “tricks” that the teacher uses to engage students.This connection between student engage­ ment with instruction and achievement has “the same scientific status as the con­ cept of homeostasis in biology, reinforcement in psychology, or gravity in physics” (Berliner, 1990, p. 3). In other words, while each of the key features is an essential component, the teacher’s ability to engage students is perhaps the sine qua non of effective instruction. Consider that an emotionless robot could present informa­ tion and provide feedback. But what’s missing is the ability to truly connect with students.When teachers speak of the “art of teaching,” they likely are considering the way in which they find ways to excite and engage the learner.When consider­ ing SWD, especially those with problematic behaviors, their reluctance or outright defiance to any attempted engagement presents a challenge that is very often seen as unacceptable to the average teacher (Cancio & Johnson, 2013).These behaviors are precursors to a predictable power struggle ending in student exclusion from the lesson and the classroom (Banks & Zionts, 2009; Kauffman, Pullen, Mostert & Trent, 2011).

Feedback The third key to effective instruction is the provision of performance feedback to students, including both verbal and gestural feedback for student academic and social behavior (Beaman & Wheldall, 2000). Positive feedback has been associated with improving student academic and behavioral outcomes and decreasing problem behaviors (Apter,Arnold, & Swinson, 2010; Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009). In his meta-analyses of instructional practices, Hattie (2009) found that feedback had an effect size of .73, ranking in the top 10 of all possible instructional practices in terms of facilitating student success. Like OTR, instructional feedback appears to be an underused teaching tool despite the supporting research (Scott et al., 2017;

A science of instruction SWD implications 73

Stichter et al., 2009; Sutherland, Wehby & Yoder, 2002). Perhaps what is not well understood by teachers is that feedback is not an add-on to instruction nor an extra strategy or superficial gesture. Feedback is an inherent part of instruction. Consider the student who looks at the word b-i-k-e and slowly responds to the teacher, say­ ing the word “bike.”The only way that student learns that he or she is correct is if the teacher provides positive feedback. If the teacher refused to respond, the student would walk away confused.When considered in this light, it is obvious that teachers should conceive of feedback as an essential component to instruction. Although negative feedback is also an important component of instruction, there are two important points to consider. First, the manner in which negative feedback is delivered is important. Reprimands are more predictive of future nega­ tive teacher-student interaction than is correction or re-teaching (Nelson & Rob­ erts, 2000). Second, the continued use of negative feedback for a given behavior is an obvious indication that instruction is not working.Thus, effective instruction is associated with more positive than negative feedback. However, rates of feedback have continually been found to be low and skewed in favor of negatives (Levy & Vaughn, 2002; Nelson & Roberts, 2000).The ratio of positive to negative feedback is calculated by dividing positive feedback by negative feedback (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), providing an index of the degree to which rates of feedback are reflective of an overall positive or negative balance. This is important given the research indicating that overall balances of positive to negative feedback ranging between three and six to one (3:1 to 6:1) are predictive of future success (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999; Fredrickson, 2000; Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Of course, many teachers may lament that they’d love to provide positive feed­ back to a particular student but that student never deserves it. First, it’s extremely unlikely that any student is doing nothing correctly, even if it is simply sitting down or keeping hands to self. But more importantly, any instance in which a student is unable to exhibit any successes is a teaching problem. If we can’t find an opportu­ nity to tell the student he or she is correct, then it is our responsibility to rethink and reteach.At some point, the level of instruction required to facilitate success may become so individualized as to be considered specialized instruction, and at times that specialized instruction may necessitate an alternative placement to fully real­ ize student success. That is, the needed instruction is unlikely to occur in general education.

Essential features of effective instruction for students with disabilities Before we consider factors that impact instructional practices of educators like teacher training and preparation issues, it is important to discuss the underly­ ing principles of effective instruction. That is, we must consider how curriculum and practices of effective instruction for SWD can be culled from our science of instruction. Effective teaching research and educational reform initiatives through the years have alternated between advocating for the use of either an explicit,

74 Justin T. Cooper et al.

teacher-directed approach or an implicit, student-centered approach. Usually, explicit instruction is suggested for students who (a) may have limited prior knowl­ edge, (b) encounter initial failure, (c) are externally motivated, and/or (d) require much teacher assistance.Additionally, explicit instruction is best when tasks are new and/or difficult, the skill or task is important in the future, and efficiency is impor­ tant. Conversely, implicit instruction is suggested for students who (a) may already have extensive prior knowledge, (b) readily succeed, (c) are intrinsically motivated, and (d) require limited teacher assistance. Implicit instruction is best used when the task is well defined and familiar, the task involves general problem solving, and the students have time to self-discover. Some contend that this dichotomous consideration of either implicit or explicit instruction does not produce positive student outcomes, particularly for diverse learners, and that both approaches should therefore be considered. For example, Coyne, Kame’enui, and Carnine (2011) wrote: If diverse learners receive all or almost all of their instruction through teacher direction, they are unlikely to become self-regulated learners. At the oppo­ site extreme, the effects of purely child-centered discovery approaches have ranged in the past from ineffective to detrimental. . . . As in most things, moderation serves diverse learners best. (pp. 11–12) Based on this rationale, Coyne et al. (2011) and Ellis and Worthington (1994) used both approaches to identify principles of effective instruction in the general educa­ tion environment. Ellis and Worthington (1994) conducted a research synthesis on teacher effec­ tiveness that included both teacher-centered and student-centered approaches. Their analysis identified 10 underlying principles that are highly correlated with student achievement (shown in Table 4.1). Coyne et al. (2011) identified six major principles of effective instructional tools to accommodate the full range of diverse learners that teachers will encounter in the general education setting.The first principle is focusing on the big ideas of a content area. By linking several little ideas together, students will gain a thorough knowledge of the most critical aspects of a given content.The second principle is using conspicu­ ous strategies to teach the big ideas, which involves the teacher explicitly sequencing the steps in learning instead of having students discover on their own. The third principle, mediating scaffolding, involves providing temporary support while students are learning new material and fading over time.The fourth principle, strategic integra­ tion, involves the systematic sequencing of instruction to show relationships between old and new knowledge.The rationale being that the combination of essential infor­ mation will lead to a “new and complex knowledge” (Coyne et al., 2011, p. 16).The fifth principle, primed background knowledge, refers to incorporating related knowledge students must have in order to successfully learn a new concept or skill. The sixth principle, judicious review, refers to the process of systematically reviewing previously learned content to ensure the information will be remembered.

A science of instruction SWD implications 75 TABLE 4.1 Principles of effective instruction according to ellis and worthington (1994)

1 Students learn more when they are actively engaged during an instructional task. 2 High and moderate success rates are correlated positively with student learning

outcomes, and low success rates are correlated negatively with student learning

outcomes.

3 Increased opportunity to learn content is correlated positively with increased student achievement.Therefore, the more content covered, the greater the potential for student learning. 4 Students achieve more in classes in which they spend much of their time being directly taught or supervised by their teacher. 5 Students can become independent, self-regulated learners through instruction that is deliberately and carefully scaffolded. 6 The critical forms of knowledge associated with strategic learning are declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge. Each of these must be addressed if students are to become independent learners. 7 Learning is increased when teaching is presented in a manner that assists students in

organizing, storing, and retrieving knowledge.

8 Students can become more independent, self-regulated learners through strategic

instruction.

9 Students can become independent, self-regulated learners through instruction that is

explicit.

10 By teaching sameness both within and across subjects, teachers promote the ability of students to access potentially relevant knowledge in novel problem-solving situations.

The principles put forth by Ellis and Worthington (1994) and Coyne et al. (2011) were intended not as a dictum but as a guide by which teachers can bring about the intended outcome of the student being an independent, self-regulated learner. It is incumbent upon the teacher to select the instructional practices that will give the greatest probability of achieving this goal. For example, Ellis and Worthington’s first principle states simply that students must be actively engaged but it is the teacher’s job to determine what instructional practices will accomplish this goal. Considerations may include both the quantity of instruc­ tion (e.g., adequate pacing and repetitions, reducing transitions) and the quality of instruction (such as providing sufficient opportunities to respond, providing interactive relevant/meaningful activities). It may also include the intensity of instruction (e.g., reducing group size, increasing instructional time). Similarly, the teacher is responsible for developing, selecting, and modifying instructional practices to address the principles put forth by Coyne et al. (2011). For exam­ ple, to effectively provide judicious review of content related to the big idea of place value in mathematics, a teacher would need to ensure that the review is (a) sufficient, (b) distributed over time, (c) cumulative, and (d) varied (Carnine, Dixon, & Kame’enui, 1994). These principles of effective instruction incorporate both implicit and explicit instruction to address the diverse range of learners in the general education

76 Justin T. Cooper et al.

environment. However, we know some approaches are more effective than others. Therefore, we must make sure the instructional practices we choose are the most predictive of student achievement for each individual. Selecting the most effec­ tive approach is particularly critical for students who are at-risk or disadvantaged because, for these students, time is the enemy. Without effective instruction, these students will continue to experience repeated failure and fall further behind their peers, both of which are predictive of a host of negative outcomes (Dishion & Pat­ terson, 2016).

Barriers to implementing effective instruction in inclusionary settings Despite broad agreement within the research community as to the essential features of effective instruction, serious barriers to adoption, implementation, and sustained use of these strategies continue to haunt inclusionary settings.While these barriers potentially affect all students, they are particularly problematic for SWD. Over time, the need for specialized instruction for SWD has been clearly established (Kirschner et al., 2006; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). In fact, accommodating and indi­ vidualizing instruction is what is “special” about special education. Given that we are seeing large numbers of SWD receiving their primary instruction in inclusive settings and given what we know about effective instruction for this population, it is critical that we develop a clear picture of the barriers to delivering high-quality instruction for SWD in inclusive settings. As previously stated, effective instruction should not only be found in special education settings. However, with the large number of SWD receiving much of their instruction in general education settings, it would seem logical that general education teachers will need to be trained to deliver the instruction that research has shown to be most effective for this population.

Inadequate preservice teacher training As has been mentioned throughout, the degree to which SWD are able to take advantage of effective instruction in the context of an inclusionary setting often has more to do with the teacher’s instruction rather than with the physical setting. Unfortunately, the current state of teacher training leaves much to be desired in terms of preparation for providing science-based instruction or working effectively with SWD.Too often, students are included in general education settings as a matter of policy rather than consideration of instructional needs. Again, while we believe that the principles of effective instruction can be applied in an inclusionary setting in many situations, (a) this will not always be the case, and (b) teachers in these set­ tings are generally unprepared to provide interventions for SWD, especially those with the most problematic behaviors (Cameron, Connor, Morrison, & Jewkes, 2008; Greenberg, Putman, & Walsh, 2014). Placement issues have a direct impact on the ability of teachers to deliver effec­ tive instruction, but the training teachers undergo to prepare them to teach students

A science of instruction SWD implications 77

with diverse and complex needs is arguably the most critical concern related to the effective instruction of SWD in inclusive settings. Simply put, the classroom teacher is the primary change agent and has the ability to affect both positive and negative student outcomes (Cooper, Hirn, & Scott, 2015). The instructional skill set that they bring to the classroom is critical to student success. In theory, teachers who come out of a traditional special education teacher preparation program should be knowledgeable of, and able to apply, a robust set of pedagogical skills designed specifically for use with SWD. However, Scott et al. (2017) found that practicing teachers are using many of the effective instructional strategies previously discussed (e.g., providing OTR, providing feedback) at far-less-than-ideal rates. If newly minted teachers are coming out of educator preparation programs and entering classrooms without critical skills they can use in the classroom, we have to take a hard look at teacher training programs. In many educator preparation programs, teachers with a general education focus proceed through their degree programs having taken one special education course (Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Murphy, 2012). Moreover, that one course is often a generic classroom management or behavior management course.Additionally, teacher candidates in general educa­ tion programs (e.g., elementary education, specific middle and secondary content areas) may take all of their coursework, have practicum and student teaching place­ ments, and graduate having never been exposed to identified high-leverage prac­ tices. Instructional practices that make use of the basic tenets of direct instruction, or other practices common to special education, are typically nonexistent in general educators’ preparation and are too often given short shrift even in special educators’ preparation. In fact, some teacher training may promote the use of methodologies that are diametrically opposed to our established science of instruction, a prob­ lem that can have especially dire results when considering SWD. Upon receiving their first teaching assignment, novice teachers may find that they have students with varying disabilities placed in their classrooms and are inadequately prepared to address the needs of all students.This, in turn, may lead to frustration when trying to plan instruction and manage a classroom.This scenario may be frustrating for the teacher, but it is likely much more frustrating for the SWD who have been placed in a classroom with teachers who, at no fault of their own, did not receive the train­ ing necessary to support all of their students. Moreover, teachers with little training or experience in effective classroom management are more likely to remove stu­ dents for minor misbehavior (Banks & Zionts, 2009), beginning a sadly predictive cycle of misbehavior and school exclusion (Gest & Gest, 2005).

Classroom management For SWD, the teacher’s ability to manage classroom behavior effectively is often the better part of his/her effective instruction (Oliver & Reschly, 2014).The ability to deliver instruction and positively engage all students in the content of educa­ tion becomes an overwhelming challenge when teachers do not have basic skills to maintain an orderly learning environment (Cameron et al., 2008). Paradoxically,

78 Justin T. Cooper et al.

while teachers continually report classroom management to be one of the areas in which they feel least prepared (Melnick & Meister, 2008), it continues to be an area in which educator preparation programs fail to provide adequate focus (Baker, 2005; Oliver & Reschly, 2010). It has been reported that educator preparation programs are not focused on the critical components of effective instruction (Leko et al., 2012). Perhaps the result, as Darling-Hammond (2014) has suggested, is that society has lost faith in teacher education. In the case of special education, students in inclusionary settings fre­ quently receive either consultation services from a special education teacher (Idol, 2006) or even receive instruction mainly from an instructional assistant in the room (Carroll, 2001).The desire to educate SWD in inclusionary settings can sometimes interfere with those very students receiving the most appropriate and beneficial educational experience.While generally well intentioned, a fervent desire to edu­ cate students who have a defined need for specialized instruction in inclusive set­ tings can be detrimental to the educational, behavioral, and social outcomes for many SWD (Kamps et al., 2003; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001).

Placement issues When we think about potential barriers or reasons why delivering effective instruc­ tion may be problematic in inclusionary settings, the first, and probably most obvi­ ous issue, is the placement itself. Children with complex instructional needs (e.g., students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders) in general education settings can compound the instructional issues that a teacher may face when trying to simultaneously deliver effective instruction and manage behavior. There has long been confusion in some education circles about the interpretation of the term least restrictive environment (LRE; McLeskey, Landers,Williamson, & Hoppey, 2010). Sim­ ply stated, SWD must be educated in the instructional environment that best meets their complex educational needs. Some have taken this to mean that the LRE is an inclusive placement in a general education classroom for all students, regardless of disability status and intensity of educational needs. In fact, the intent of the LRE mandate is to ensure that multidisciplinary teams consider, on an individual basis, what placement best meets the needs of each individual student who has met the eligibility requirements for special education services.The general education class­ room is only one placement option on the continuum of alternative placements for SWD.While educators should always make every effort to place a student with disabilities in an environment that, to the greatest extent possible, allows them to be educated with their peers without disabilities, the general education classroom will not always be the LRE for all SWD. When considering the LRE for any student with disabilities, a multidisciplinary team must consider a variety of factors, including the ability of the teacher-of­ record to deliver intensive and effective instruction that meets the needs of all students, including those with disabilities.This may entail differentiating instruction to meet specific needs and using specific, evidence-based pedagogical strategies

A science of instruction SWD implications 79

designed for use with students who have intellectual disabilities or specific learn­ ing disabilities.While using specific instructional strategies designed for SWD, the teacher also is often required to employ a variety of behavior management strate­ gies at the same time (Maggin,Wehby, Farmer, & Brooks, 2016). Considering the complex and intricate nature of instructional methodologies that must be used for SWD, the placement of those students in the appropriate setting becomes par­ amount. And, in turn, the instructional repertoire of the teachers charged with improving the academic and social outcomes of those students must be considered when determining the appropriate instructional environment.

Conclusions regarding the future of effective instruction Although we have discussed some of the issues of effective instruction as they pertain to the education of SWD in inclusive settings, there is still much work to be done to ensure that all SWD are receiving the type of instruction that increases the probability of their success. As special educators, we must continue to let sci­ ence be our guide. Education has been plagued in the past by a vicious cycle of allowing trends and fads to guide our classroom practices.We simply cannot select instructional practices on a whim. SWD, by definition, are generally already behind their peers in academic achievement and, in many cases, social competence as well. We must use science to help us determine the most efficient and effective forms of instruction to use with special populations of students. Future research must help determine the instructional strategies that, when used with fidelity by teachers, pro­ mote positive academic and social-behavioral outcomes for SWD. In addition, we must continue to work to determine the most effective placement strategies for this student population. If SWD are going to continue to be served in inclusive settings, we must explore effective instruction delivery models, including finding ways for both special educators and general educators to deliver instruction effectively in all settings, including inclusionary settings. Regardless of setting, all students, including those with disabilities, deserve to have teachers who are able to implement effective, evidence-based practices in the classroom. A primary area of concern, and thus a major emphasis for the future, is teacher training. At present, educator preparation programs are not ensuring that students are leaving their programs ready to implement effective instruction with all stu­ dents, both those with and without disabilities. All teacher candidates should, at a minimum, be exposed to the instructional methodology and practices that have been demonstrated to be effective with SWD. In fact, when looking at High Lev­ erage Practices for example, you will find that most, if not all of the identified practices, have merit for use with all students, not just those with disabilities. Hav­ ing teacher candidates take only one course during their programs in which they receive minimal information about working with SWD will no longer suffice.We must ensure that our preservice teacher candidates are leaving their programs hav­ ing demonstrated the ability to implement effective instruction in classroom set­ tings with all students.This means that generalization of skills taught in preservice

80 Justin T. Cooper et al.

coursework must by verified in classroom settings. This is especially critical for general education teachers who will be working with SWD, who often have the most intensive instructional needs. The teacher-of-record in the classroom has been, and will continue to be, the primary change agent for social-emotional and academic growth in students (Cooper et al., 2015). Considering the ongoing trend of serving students with varying disabilities in inclusionary general education settings, it is imperative that educator preparation programs evaluate their curriculum to ensure that all teachers, both special and general education, are prepared to meet the needs of all students by delivering effective instruction in inclusionary settings. Researchers (e.g., Berliner, 1990; McLeskey, Maheady, Billingsley, Brownell, & Lewis, 2019) have identified the tenets of effective instruction and other practices (e.g., high-leverage practices) that have shown strong potential for improving the outcomes of SWD and other struggling learners when implemented with fidelity. However, educator preparation programs have not been as tenacious in their efforts to ensure those practices are embedded in all teacher preparation programs. If the vision of special education as a service designed to ensure students with varying disabling conditions achieve positive social-emotional and educational out­ comes is to ever be fully realized, then effective instruction must become an integral part of the equation. Effective instruction is teacher-driven, and thus teachers must be prepared to implement an array of evidence-based practices in the classroom. Both the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 call for the use of research-based practices as well as training to ensure that teachers have the neces­ sary skills and knowledge in the use of scientifically based instructional practices to improve the achievement levels of SWD (IDEA, 2004, Section 1400 (c)(5)(E)).The responsibility to ensure this happens falls not only on educator preparation pro­ grams but local education agencies as well.All parties are responsible for protecting these legal mandates, ensuring that the directives in these laws are implemented, and advocating for the continued use of effective instructional practices.This will help to provide the greatest probability for positive outcomes for the students who have the most intensive instructional needs of all students, including those with disabili­ ties.We are at a critical juncture in the education of SWD. However, with greater attention to preservice teacher preparation, appropriate placement options, and an emphasis on the use of scientifically based instructional practices, we can improve the social and educational outcomes for all students.

References Apter, B., Arnold, C., & Swinson, J. (2010). A mass observation study of student and teacher behaviour in British primary classrooms. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26, 151–171. Baker, P. H. (2005). Managing student behavior: How ready are teachers to meet the chal­ lenge? American Secondary Education, 22, 51–64. Banks,T., & Zionts, P. (2009).Teaching a cognitive behavioral strategy to manage emotions. Intervention in School & Clinic, 44, 307–313.

A science of instruction SWD implications 81

Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2000). Teachers’ use of approval and disapproval in the class­ room. Educational Psychology, 20, 431–446. Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time. In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3–35). New York, NY:Teachers College Press. Broekkamp, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007).The gap between educational research and practice:A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational Research and Eval­ uation, 13, 203–220. Brophy, J. E. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 17–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York, NY: Macmillan. Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner,W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999).The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 839–855. Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Jewkes, A. M. (2008). Effects of class­ room organization on letter-word reading in first grade. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 173–192. Cancio, E. J., & Johnson, J. W. (2013). Designing effective classwide motivation systems for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 57, 49–57. Carnine, D.W., Dixon, R., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1994). Math curriculum guidelines for diverse learners. Curriculum/Technology Quarterly, 3, 1–3. Carroll, D. (2001). Considering paraeducator training, roles, and responsibilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 60–64. Cooper, J.T., Hirn, R. G., & Scott,T. M. (2015).The teacher as change agent: Considering instructional practice to prevent student failure. Preventing School Failure:Alternative Educa­ tion for Children and Youth, 59, 1–4. Coyne, M., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. (Eds.). (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accom­ modate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation:The holy grail of teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89, 547–561. Dishion,T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (2016).The development and ecology of antisocial behavior: Linking etiology, prevention, and treatment. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psycho­ pathology: Maladaptation and psychopathology (Vol. 3, 3rd ed., pp. 647–678). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 34, 5–22. Dunn, L. M. (1983). Citation classic: Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Current Contents-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 18. Ellis, E. S., & Worthington, L. A. (1994). Research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for teachers. Eugene, OR:The University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. Engelmann, S. (1997).Theory of mastery and acceleration. In J.W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 177–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Engelmann, S. (2007). Teaching needy kids in our backward system: 42 years of trying. Eugene, OR: ADI Press. Engelmann, S., Becker,W. C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988).The direct instruction follow through model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 303–317.

82 Justin T. Cooper et al.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York, NY: Irvington. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (2011). Could John Stuart Mill have saved our schools? Verona, WI: Attainment. ESSA. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016). Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: The impor­ tance of peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 577–606. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686. Gable, R.A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 195–205. Gest, S. D., & Gest, J. M. (2005). Reading tutoring for students at academic and behavioral risk: Effects on time-on-task in the classroom. Education & Treatment of Children, 28, 25–47. Greenberg, J., Putman, H., & Walsh, K. (2014). Training our future teachers: Classroom manage­ ment.Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 328–349. Greer-Chase, M., Rhodes, W. A., & Kellam, S. G. (2002). Why the prevention of aggressive disruptive behaviors in middle school must begin in elementary school. Clearing House, 75, 242–245. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge Press. Haydon,T., Mancil, G. R., & Van Loan, C. (2009). Using opportunities to respond in a gen­ eral education classroom:A case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 267–278. Heflin, L., & Bullock, L. (1999). Inclusion of students with emotional/behavioral disorders: A survey of teachers in general and special education. Preventing School Failure:Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 43, 103–111. Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education a pro­ gram evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77–94. Kamps, D. M.,Wills, H. P., Greenwood, C. R.,Thorne, S., Lazo, J. F., Crockett, J. L., . . . Swag­ gart, B. L. (2003). Curriculum influences on growth in early reading fluency for students with academic and behavioral risks:A descriptive study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 211–224. Kauffman, J. M. (2011). Toward a science of education: The battle between rogue and real science. Verona, WI:Attainment. Kauffman, J. M., Pullen, P. L., Mostert, M. P., & Trent, S. C. (2011). Managing classroom behavior: A reflective case-based approach (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 65–75. Kim, J. S. (2008). Research and the reading wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 372–375. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruc­ tion does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. Leko, M. M., Brownell, M.T., Sindelar, P.T., & Murphy, K. (2012). Promoting special educa­ tion preservice teacher expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44, 1–16. Levy, S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). An observational study of teachers’ reading instruction of stu­ dents with emotional and behavioral disorders, Behavioral Disorders, 27, 215–325. Lopes, J.A., Monteiro, I., Sil,V., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn, M. M. (2004).Teachers’ percep­ tions about teaching problem students in regular classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 394–419.

A science of instruction SWD implications 83

Maggin, D. M., Wehby, J. H., Farmer, T. W., & Brooks, D. S. (2016). Intensive interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Issues, theory and future directions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 24, 127–137. McIntosh, K., Chard, D., Boland, J., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 146–154. McLeskey, J., Landers, E.,Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2010). Are we moving toward edu­ cating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140. McLeskey, J., Maheady, L., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M.T., & Lewis,T. J. (2019). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). School change and inclusive schools: Lessons learned from practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 65–73. Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experienced teach­ ers’ concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31, 39–56. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel:Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups. Retrieved from US Department of Health and Human Services website July 1, 2019, from www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/product/247 Nelson, J. R., & Roberts, M. L. (2000). Ongoing reciprocal teacher-student interactions involving disruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 27–37. Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special education teacher preparation in classroom Management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behav­ ioral Disorders, 35, 188–199. Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2014). Special education teacher preparation in classroom organization and behavior management. In P. Sindelar, E. McCray, M. Brownell, & B. Lingnugaris (Eds.), Teacher preparation in classroom organization and behavior management (pp. 288–301). New York, NY: Routledge. Partin, T. C., Robertson, R. E., Maggin, D. M., Oliver, R. M., & Wehby, J. (2010). Using teacher praise and opportunities to respond to promote appropriate student behavior. Preventing School Failure, 54, 172–178. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986).Teaching functions. In M. C.Witrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York, NY: Macmillan. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1994). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its con­ structivist framework (CRLT Report 16-01). Bloomington, IN: Center for Research on Learning and Technology at Indiana University. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisa­ tion. Educational Researcher, 33, 12–20. Scott,T. M., Alter, P. J., & Hirn, R. (2011). An examination of typical classroom context and instruction for students with and without behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 619–642. Scott,T. M., Hirn, R. G., & Cooper, J.T. (2017). Classroom success: Instructional behaviors are key for student achievement. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield Publishing. Stichter, J. P., Lewis,T. J.,Whittaker,T.A., Richter, M., Johnson, N.W., & Trussell, R. P. (2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies: Comparisons among high- and low-risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 68–81.

84 Justin T. Cooper et al.

Stockard, J.,Wood,T.W., Coughlin, C., & Khoury, C. R. (2018).The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88, 479–507. Sutherland, K. S.,Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003).The effects of varying rates of opportuni­ ties to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248. Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer,T., Stichter, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining the influ­ ence of teacher behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic out­ comes for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 41, 223–233. Sutherland, K. S.,Wehby, J. H., & Yoder, P. J. (2002). Examination of the relationship between teacher praise and opportunities for students with EBD to respond to academic requests. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 5–13. Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109–119. Sze-Yeng, F., & Hussain, R. M. R. (2010). Self-directed learning in a socioconstructivist learning environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1913–1917. Taber, K. S. (2010). Constructivism and direct instruction as competing instructional para­ digms: An essay review of Tobias and Duffy’s constructivist instruction: Success or fail­ ure? New York, NY: Routledge. Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas, 13(8). Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accom­ plished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 121–165. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics, 2017 (NCES 2018-070), Chapter 2. US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Dis­ abilities Education Act (IDEA). (2004). Database. Retrieved July 30, 2019, from https:// www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bcc Vaughn, S., Gersten, R. L., & Chard, D. J. (2000).The underlying message in LD intervention research: Finding from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114. Westling, D. L. (2010).Teachers and challenging behaviors: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 48–63.

5 TIERED SYSTEMS AND INCLUSION

Potential benefits, clarifications, and considerations Kathleen Lynne Lane, Mark Matthew Buckman, Wendy Peia Oakes, and Holly Menzies

As former general and special education teachers who have taught in Arizona, Cali­ fornia, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, New York, and Virginia, we have not only read about innovations in educational programming for students with exceptionalities (e.g., Dunn, 1968; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1996)—we have lived through them. For the more senior authors, we began our teaching careers in a time when the refer-test­ place model reigned (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004).When students’ academic performance was less than optimal or when students’ social and behavioral patterns negatively impacted their academic performance despite teachers’ best efforts, stu­ dents were referred for testing to determine special education eligibility and were often identified for special education services (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). This became known as the refer-test-place model. Recognizing this model was prone to unnecessarily identifying students with a disability, the field of school psychology focused on a new approach: refer-consult­ intervene (Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990). As part of this problem-solving approach, students whose academic, behavioral, or social skills performance patterns deviated substantially from normative behavior were referred for support using a general education-led pre-referral intervention process (Lane, Mahdavi, & BorthwickDuffy, 2003; Lloyd, Kauffman, Landrum, & Roe, 1991).The goal was to see if the general education teacher could adjust instruction or the classroom environment to provide sufficient remediation. Intervention proposed by these problem-solving teams (referred to as pre-referral intervention teams, student study teams, child study teams, or general education intervention teams) were implemented—often with little attention to needed dos­ age or intensity, treatment integrity (the extent to which the intervention was implemented as designed;Yeaton & Sechrest, 1981), or social validity (social sig­ nificance of the intervention goals, social acceptability of the intervention goals, or social importance of the intervention outcomes; Kazdin, 1977;Wolf, 1978). Not

86 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

surprisingly, this raised concerns about the procedural integrity of the pre-referral intervention process as well as the quality of the interventions developed. Efforts were made to refine the process, with Bergan and Kratochwill (1990) introducing a four-step process involving: (a) problem identification, (b) plan analy­ sis, (c) implementation, and (d) plan evaluation. This enhanced and refined inter­ vention efforts while still supporting individual students. If interventions did not sufficiently narrow the gap between current and desired levels of performance, students were then referred for special education and often received services in self-contained settings (Lane, Wehby, Little, & Cooley, 2005a, 2005b). Whether it was a referral to the pre-referral intervention team or a referral to determine special education eligibility, the teacher acted as the gatekeeper by nominating students for additional support. If a concern was not noticed by a teacher and acted upon, then assistance was seldom forthcoming (Lane, 2003). In the early days of special education, the eligibility category assigned had a dramatic impact on a student’s program and tended to result in a splintered edu­ cational experience. For example, students with mild-to-moderate intellectual dis­ abilities (at the time referred to as mild-to-moderate mental retardation [MR, now intellectual disability, ID]; MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998) received access to functional skills curriculum. Students with specific learning disabilities (SLD or simply LD) received instruction to address their specific area of need (e.g., read­ ing, math, or writing), and students with emotional disturbances (ED; at that time referred to as serious emotional disturbances, SED) received instruction related to social skills, anger management, and conflict-resolution skills. Although students received focused services related to their disability status, other areas of schooling received less attention. For example, students with ED often did not receive access to other academic content area instruction, which over time resulted in decreases in academic performance likely due to the absence of instruction (Lane, Gresham, & O’Shaughnessy, 2002; Lane & Wehby, 2002). Teacher preparation programs often did not prepare prospective educators about how to instruct students with ED in a set of academic, social, and behavioral skills. Nevertheless, the first concern of a teacher faced with a behavioral problem should be academic instruction because appropriate academic instruction reduces the likelihood of behavioral problems. Moreover, social-emotional behavior, like an academic skill, is something that can be taught (Kauffman, Pullen, Mostert, & Trent, 2011; see also previous chapter by Cooper, Scott, & Whitney). It was the rare text that offered information on how to meet these students’ needs in all domains. In fact,Wallace and Kauffman’s (1986) textbook, Teaching Stu­ dents with Learning and Behavior Problems (1st ed. 1973), was the only university-level book published before 2002 to address academic instruction for students with ED. This absence of balanced instruction for students with ED was extremely troubling. By identifying students as needing special education services, placing them in more restrictive settings with few—if any—appropriate peer models, and providing sup­ port for only their behavioral and social-emotional needs, we were running the risk of creating additional gaps between desired and actual performance in other areas

Tiered systems and inclusion

87

(e.g., reading skills, mathematic skills, and written expression; Gresham, 2002; Lane, 2004). Even if all behavioral and social-emotional issues were addressed success­ fully in self-contained settings, in the absence of balanced programming students would return the general education setting with substantial gaps in their academic knowledge and skill sets (Lane, 2004).This is but one example of unintended con­ sequences of splintered programming.

A perspective shift: tiered system for preventing and responding to problems Fortunately, in the late 1990s, the field began to shift away from the focus on within-child difficulties and toward a systems approach for meeting students’ aca­ demic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs. Rather than waiting for students to fail repeatedly, local and state education agencies are adopting proactive approaches for meeting students’ multiple needs at the first sign of difficulty (Lane, Oakes, & Menzies, 2014; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Yudin, 2014). Tiered systems were brought from the field of mental health to the educational community in 1996 by Hill Walker. In a seminal article published in the Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,Walker et al. (1996) introduced an integrated model of universal, selected, and indicated intervention that could be organized in a cascade of support to obtain primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention in schools (now referred to as Tiers 1, 2, and 3).This foundational article was the premise for Positive Behavioral Interven­ tions and Supports (PBIS), now referenced in the Individuals with Disabilities Educa­ tion Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), as well as other tiered models. The goal of tiered logic was to (a) prevent the development of learning and behavioral problems from occurring and (b) respond effectively and efficiently when special challenges arose so that they did not become unmanageable. Each level of prevention—Tiers 1, 2, and 3—was to be comprised of evidence-based, or at least research-based strategies practices, and programs with sufficient scientific evidence to suggest that, if implemented with integrity, desired changes in student performance would be achieved (see chapter 7). The desire was not to hinder or eradicate special education services but to reduce unnecessary referrals and sub­ sequent placements into special education when not warranted and to support inclusive programming for students to the maximum extent possible. Furthermore, the intent was to create structures that facilitated the collaborative work of general and special education teachers and allowed them to capitalize on each other’s skills and expertise to enhance educational programming for all students (Lane, Menzies, Ennis, & Bezdek, 2013). When designed and implemented as intended, tiered systems support the edu­ cational experiences of all students—including those with identified disabilities— through shared ownership, moving away from “your students” versus “my students” to “our students.” However, educators must retain the ability to provide the inten­ sity of intervention necessary for individual students, including referrals for special education services when warranted.

88 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

Purpose As Kauffman notes in the preface of this book, “Tiered education is an example of a reform designed to make more inclusion possible, and what tiers do and do not do to facilitate inclusion must be considered” (p. xxiv). In this chapter, we do not debate the merits and challenges of inclusion. Instead, we begin by providing a brief overview of tiered systems and their implications for students with disabili­ ties, noting the progression from Response to Intervention (RTI; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012; Kauffman, Badar, & Wiley, 2019; Kauffman, Bruce, & Lloyd, 2012); Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS; Horner & Sugai, 2015); MultiTiered System of Supports (MTSS; Freeman, Miller, & Newcomer, 2015); Intercon­ nected Systems Framework (ISF; Barrett, Eber, & Weist, 2013); and Comprehensive, Integrated,Three-Tiered (Ci3T; Lane et al., 2014) model, with Ci3T the focus of our discussion. Ci3T is a tiered system featuring academic, behavioral, and social domains in one system, designed as a framework for meeting students’ multiple needs using evidence-based strategies, practices, and programs at each level of pre­ vention relying on multiple sources of data for decision making. Next, we share les­ sons learned from various research teams about the three domains constituting the base of the Ci3T model (primary [Tier 1] prevention) as well as describe its unique features. After describing Ci3T and noting its distinguishing features, we introduce potential benefits of tiered systems as a whole—including facilitating inclusion and discussing the potential value of tiered systems for students with exceptionalities.

A brief overview of tiered systems and their implications for special education Although tiered systems are often discussed as a single approach to educational reform (Kauffman et al., 2019), several models of tiered systems exist. Examples of tiered systems include RTI, PBIS, MTSS, ISF, and Ci3T. Differences between these systems can be understood by contrasting their stated purposes and the outcomes they target. For example, RTI originated as an alternative method for identifying and serving students with learning disabilities in reading (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). PBIS, on the other hand, was designed as a proactive behavioral management framework rooted in Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), advocating an instructional approach to behavior in which established expectations are taught, practiced, and reinforced rather than relying on punitive approaches to managing problematic behaviors (Horner & Sugai, 2000). Thus, the clearest differentiation between models is the domain of emphasis. Historically, academics and behavior were addressed separately, often resulting in dual systems of support. However, recent research and policy have prioritized the integration of practices to support students in the context of tiered models across multiple domains (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; Institute of Educa­ tion Sciences, 84.32N). For example, MTSS blends elements of PBIS and RTI to support academic (e.g., reading and mathematics) and behavioral success. ISF

Tiered systems and inclusion

89

merges behavioral programming of PBIS with preventative and responsive mental health supports to ensure the social-emotional needs of all students are met (Bar­ rett et al., 2013). Ci3T offers a further expansion on these models by integrating common elements of tiered systems (subsequently described) to support students across academic, behavioral, and social-emotional domains (Lane et al., 2014; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2020). In this chapter, we use the Ci3T model to illus­ trate how tiered models may impact the education of students with disabilities.Yet, it should be noted that philosophical and practical differences characterize each tiered approach. One common underlying feature of tiered models is the use of a cascade of sup­ ports for students—most often organized in three tiers—typically represented with the now ubiquitous red, green, and yellow triangle (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). The base of the triangle represents Tier 1, constituting primary prevention efforts provided to all students. Applying logic from interdisciplinary prevention models, Tier 1 is intended to meet the needs of approximately 80% of students. Students requiring additional supports receive Tier 2, or targeted interventions. Tier 2 acts as a supplement to Tier 1 by providing additional instruction or more intensive intervention to prevent special challenges from widening achievement gaps. It is expected that 10% to 15% of students may require Tier 2.At the top of the triangle is Tier 3.Tier 3 consists of the most intensive intervention and is provided only to students with significant needs. The relationship between Tier 3 and special education is a subject of some controversy (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). Some argue Tier 3 is special educa­ tion, while others contend special education plays a more complex role within tiered systems, acting as a mediator to assist students with disabilities with access to educational opportunities across the continuum of support. Disparate answers to how special education fits within tiered models is not a matter of mere semantics. Rather, this issue is central to questions about the goals of tiered systems. For exam­ ple, goals may include: (a) Providing students with access to evidence-based strate­ gies, practices, and programs at the first sign of concern; (b) reducing unnecessary referrals to special education; and (c) facilitating constructive inclusive experiences. In each of the tiered systems noted above (e.g., RTI, PBIS, MTSS, ISF, and Ci3T),Tier 3 is not special education, nor is Tier 2 used as the pre-referral inter­ vention process. Instead, the tiered structure provides a flexible array of supports (ideally evidence-based strategies, practices, and programs) ranging from simple and easy-to-implement strategies to intensive interventions to improve a school’s readi­ ness to offer assistance or intervention at the earliest signs of concern. Movement between tiers is guided by data-informed decision-making efforts, interpreting multiple sources of data with care and common sense (Lane et al., 2020). In tiered systems, students with identified disabilities still have an individualized education program (IEP) detailing the services that will be provided to meet their unique needs.When implemented well, tiered systems offer the opportunity to leverage the many talents of special educators who have extensive training on how to determine what works for whom and under which conditions (Lane, Wolery, Reichow, &

90 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

Rogers, 2006). As part of these systems, special educators’ roles become increas­ ingly integrated with whole-school efforts. In many ways, the strengths of special education—data-based planning for students; consideration of multiple domains including academic, behavior, and social, amongst others; and collaboration— become part of regular school practices: The new normal that offers benefits for the system as a whole as well as students with identified disabilities. In the following section, we examine the evidence for what we argue are three learning domains critical for successful implementation of tiered systems: academic, behavioral, and social.Then, we provide an overview of how these three domains can be integrated into a single tiered system using the Ci3T model as an illustra­ tion. Finally, we close with lessons learned about implementation of Ci3T and the potential benefits for students with disabilities, including inclusive educational experiences.

Inquiry and lessons learned There is an extensive and growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of tiered models of prevention, providing encouraging outcomes for students in academic, behavioral, and social-emotional domains (Lane et al., 2020).We briefly highlight salient findings in each domain.

Academic domain Historically, a comprehensive textbook adoption was the primary curriculum for reading and mathematics instruction, sometimes complemented by district, school, or teacher initiatives. When RTI was introduced, additional elements were intro­ duced school-wide to facilitate effective instruction at Tier 1. These included use of a validated core reading curriculum in addition to (a) universal screenings three times a year to detect students making less than adequate progress, (b) evidencedbased practices for students requiring Tier 2 or Tier 3 supports, and (c) progress monitoring tools to examine the effect of these supplemental supports (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). A range of resources were developed to support local educational agencies (LEAs) installing RTI, as this was a major shift that had a district-wide impact. For example, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NAS­ DSE) developed a policy document to inform the design and implementation of RTI (Batsche et al., 2006). It noted the importance of data-informed decision making to enhance students’ instructional experiences as well as the necessity of professional development for installing a tiered system.The main focus of RTI was to detect and provide appropriate instruction for any student struggling to develop reading skills rather than only detecting and supporting students who might have a disability and qualify for special education services (e.g., those with specific learn­ ing disabilities).Thus, the model was to prevent and respond to academic problems (L. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017).

Tiered systems and inclusion

91

Several lines of inquiry regarding RTI have informed best practices. For exam­ ple, the importance of multi-year plans and strong leadership has been established, as have developing professional learning blueprints (e.g., coordinated district pro­ fessional learning offerings), securing resources (e.g., curricula, assessment tools), and empowering leaders to navigate the shift in system (e.g., McDougal, Graney, Wright, & Ardoin, 2010; McIntosh et al., 2014). In addition to lessons learned regarding exploration and adoption (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005), the importance of implementing Tier 1 efforts with fidelity has become incontrovertible.This necessitates high-quality professional learning to ensure edu­ cators responsible for implementation have the knowledge, confidence, and skills necessary. If treatment integrity of Tier 1 is assumed rather than assessed, a multi­ tude of errors can occur including false positives (e.g., suggesting a student required additional support that is not actually needed) and false negatives (e.g., overlooking a student in need of additional support)—with the later error being the more seri­ ous error in prevention efforts (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2014; Kauffman, 1999). As part of Tier 1 practices, important decisions must be made about how to assess implementation to ensure Tier 1 elements are used as designed (with integ­ rity) and can accurately detect students requiring Tier 2 and 3 supports. Then, additional measurement is needed to ensure Tier 2 and 3 supports are implemented as planned as well as assess student progress with these supplemental supports in place (e.g., trend and level performance patterns; Denton, 2012). RTI has also been extended from reading to mathematics, following parallel processes (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017; Gersten & Newman-Gonchar, 2011; Lembke, Hampton, & Beyers, 2012). Ideally, core programs should be validated in their entirety through rigorous, empirical inquiry (e.g., see Council for Exceptional Children, 2014). However, most Tier 1 efforts are derived, meaning they are comprised of evidence-based strategies, practices, and programs.Thus, while components constituting Tier 1 are research based, the full model has not been tested.With this in mind, future inquiry could be conducted using rigorous experimental designs (e.g., randomized control trials; Lane et al., 2020) to examine the extent to which high-quality implementa­ tion is associated with a range of student outcomes such as improved academic performance and reduction in referrals to special education.).

Behavioral domain: positive behavioral interventions and supports Decades of descriptive and single case research have provided extensive informa­ tion about improving students’ behavioral performance in a range of instructional and non-instructional settings. For example, inquiry related to PBIS has demon­ strated improved student behavior in hallways (Leedy, Bates, & Safran, 2004; Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998), on playgrounds (Lewis, Powers, Kelk, & Newcomer, 2002; Lewis et al., 1998), as well as during transitions (e.g., Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997). Many studies of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) have reported decreases in office discipline referrals (ODRs) at the

92 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

elementary level (e.g., Scott & Barrett, 2004; Sprague et al., 2001) and suspensions (e.g., Netzel & Eber, 2003; Scott, 2001). In addition, inquiry in middle and high school settings also suggested primary prevention efforts were effective and revealed decreases in ODRs (e.g., Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001;Taylor-Greene & Kartub, 2000), physical and verbal aggression (Metzler et al., 2001), detentions (Lui­ selli, Putnam, & Sunderland, 2002), and hallway noise during lunch time (Kartub, Taylor-Green, March, & Horner, 2000). Furthermore, this body of research also indicates implementation of PBIS supports educators in utilizing positive, proactive strategies. For example, Metzler and colleagues (2001) demonstrated increases in the proportion of students who reported receiving acknowledgments for desired performance. By decreasing student behaviors particularly challenging to teachers and establishing more positive school climates, it is possible to increase instructional time, with the goal of also improving students’ academic performance. More recently, Catherine Bradshaw and her colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial examining the impact of SW-PBIS on student performance at the elementary level (see Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialongo, & Leaf, 2008; Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). As part of this study, all 37 elementary schools in 1 urban district were randomly assigned to the SW-PBIS (N = 21) or control (N = 16) conditions to examine the impact of SW-PBIS on student performance (Brad­ shaw et al., 2010). Schools randomly assigned to the treatment condition assembled school-site leadership teams (six to eight members) who participated in a profes­ sional learning series with on-site coaching to learn how to design and imple­ ment a SW-PBIS model. Over a four-year period, statistically significant reductions in ODRs and suspensions occurred. Although schools in the treatment condition demonstrated improved achievement scores, results were not statistically significant. The authors noted that changes in procedures for state testing may have impacted academic outcomes. In addition to student-level outcomes, Bradshaw and colleagues reported the impact on organization health by administering the Organizational Health Inven­ tory for Elementary Schools (OHI-E; Hoy, 2003) annually. Over the four-year period, schools in the treatment condition had statistically significantly higher OHI-E scores than schools in the control condition. In addition, schools in the treatment condition scored higher than schools in the control condition on resource influence and staff affiliation. Collectively, findings suggested that as PBIS was implemented, the school culture shifted in a positive direction, with faculty and staff changing the nature of student-teacher interactions.

Social domain: social-emotional learning Social-emotional learning is defined as the “process through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make respon­ sible decisions” (www.casel.org, 2018). In the last five years, educational leaders

Tiered systems and inclusion

93

such as Michael Yudin (former US Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services) and Randy Watson (Commission of Education, Kansas) have issued calls to action to address students’ behavioral and social-emotional skill sets—particularly students who underperform academically—to enhance educational outcomes. Many school leaders have adopted and installed social and emotional learning (SEL) programs as the scientific community is providing evi­ dence about how central soft skills are to students’ educational success. Namely, behavioral and academic achievement impact students’ emotional maturity, mental health, and ability to successfully negotiate relationships with authority figures as well as peers. More specifically, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest, when imple­ mented with integrity, SEL programs yield improved academic performance, increased competencies in prosocial behavior, and decreased internalizing and externalizing behavior patterns (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).There are a wide range of programs addressing various skill sets includ­ ing self-determined behaviors, social skills, and awareness of one another’s feelings (Lawson, McKenzie, Becker, Selby, & Hoover, 2018). What Works Clearinghouse (WWC; US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2019) fea­ tures the current body of evidence for many curricula, offering indicators that can be used by district and school-site leaders to determine which to adopt and install. In addition, the scientific community provides a range of reviews to inform deci­ sion making. For example, Durlak and colleagues (2011) conducted a meta-analysis examining outcomes of Tier 1 SEL programs implemented with over 270,000 K–12 students. One purpose of their review was to determine the extent to which SEL programs taught by school personnel in authentic educational settings in a range of geographical locales as part of Tier 1 (primary prevention) practices would yield desired outcomes. Results indicated that in general,Tier 1 efforts included an average of 40 lessons taught by general education teachers. Students in the treat­ ment condition relative to controls demonstrated increased test scores, grades, SEL skills, positive social behaviors, and positive attitudes as well as lower levels of con­ duct problems and emotional distress. In another meta-analyses examining 28 class-wide social skills interventions (treatment-outcome studies involving group comparisons), January, Casey, and Paulson (2011) reported small yet positive outcomes in student performance.They noted variables such as grade level, program duration, and type of instructional delivery moderated or mediated intervention results. For example, younger stu­ dents (e.g., preschool and kindergarten) experienced more positive outcomes.This is consistent with current knowledge that behavior is malleable early on (see Walker et al., 2004). In addition, students involved in programs with greater dosage (lasting longer) and higher levels of student engagement (e.g., role play) were more effec­ tive than brief or passive intervention programs. Collectively, results indicate SEL curricula—when implemented as designed—are likely to have a positive impact on student outcomes as well as a positive impact on school climate, creating positive, productive learning environments.

94 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

Summary Although by no means an exhaustive review of the current knowledge base, inquiry of tiered models of prevention offer growing evidence regarding outcomes for students in academic, behavioral, and social-emotional domains. A key finding is there are school-wide interventions that can improve a school’s overall student per­ formance in reading, behavior, and social-emotional learning. Second, there is now extensive information available about the structures, policies, professional learning, and leadership that must be in place to implement Tier 1 of a tiered model. Finally, measuring implementation fidelity has emerged as a component fundamental to the effectiveness of tiered systems. In the section that follows, we describe Ci3T and highlight distinguishing features that address all three learning domains in a single model.

Ci3T: description and distinguishing features The Ci3T model is theoretically grounded in ABA, a field offering more than 70 years of inquiry to support the effectiveness of applied behavior analytic princi­ ples. Ci3T represents a broadening of MTSS, with PBIS and academic learning at the core, but expanded to prioritize students’ social-emotional needs with the use of validated programs (e.g., Positive Action; Flay, Allred, & Ordway, 2001). Rather than having one team examining students’ academic performance, another examin­ ing students’ behavioral needs, and yet another examining social-emotional well­ being, Ci3T features a comprehensive, integrated, data-driven prevention model featuring evidence-based strategies, practices, and programs at each level of pre­ vention (Cook, Smith, & Tankersley, 2012). As with most tiered models, responses at each level of prevention increase in intensity to respond to the student’s degree of need (Ervin, Schaughency, Goodman, McGlinchey, & Matthews, 2006; Gage, Sugai, Lewis, & Brzozowy, 2015).The Ci3T model was developed to promote col­ laboration among general and special educators, families, and administrators who work together to meet students’ academic, behavioral, and social needs—including students at risk for learning and behavioral problems and students receiving spe­ cial education services.The intent is to establish transparency and equitable access to supports with formal structures (e.g., academic and behavior screenings;Tier 2 interventions) and to determine which students require assistance beyond Tier 1 efforts (Lane, Menzies, Ennis, & Oakes, 2015). Ci3T features not only data-informed decision making according to students’ individual needs but also data-informed professional learning for school faculty and staff. In our partnerships with districts and schools, each school established a Ci3T Leadership Team that included a principal (or designee with decision-making authority), two general education teachers, one special education, and one to two other individuals (e.g., counselor, school psychologist, or social worker). As part of a year-long professional learning series, Ci3T Leadership Teams draft blueprints (A–F) with multiple points of full faculty and staff input (see Building Your Ci3T

Tiered systems and inclusion

95

model at www.ci3t.org/building; see interactive eBook: Lane, Oakes, Cantwell, & Royer, 2019). For example, at Tier 1, roles and responsibilities are established for students, faculty and staff, parents and family members, and administrators in aca­ demic, behavioral, and social domains. Faculty and staff may be expected to provide 90 minutes of English and Language Arts (ELA) instruction at the elementary level while parents check in with their children about homework. Behavioral expecta­ tions are defined to illustrate what it means to be respectful, responsible, and safe in a range of settings.These expectations are taught in the same manner as academic content. In addition, teachers provide Tier 1 instruction in social skills, following the instructional schedule specified in the validated curriculum adopted. Lessons are taught in an integrated fashion, providing students explicit instruction in the skills as well as opportunities for their practice along with behavioral precorrections to facilitate smooth learning experiences (Lane, Oakes, Buckman, & Lane, 2018). Tier 1 practices are designed to provide a foundation for high and appropri­ ate academic growth, common behavioral expectations, and a common language and skill set for social experiences. Special education services, while individualized, stand to benefit from cogent programming consistent with common expectations and language across all school settings. Students receiving special education sup­ ports may be more likely to have newly learned skills reinforced in general aca­ demic and social contexts of the larger school community. At the end of the Ci3T professional learning series, each Ci3T Leadership Team has fully developed a Ci3T Implementation Manual (Tier 1, 2, and 3 academic, behavioral, and social skill components; assessment schedule; reactive plans) that includes “district certainties” (e.g., establishing district-wide and/or school-level policies and practices).This Ci3T Implementation Manual is similar to a constitu­ tion to guide schools in implementing their Ci3T model the following academic year (e.g., Lane & Menzies, 2003). It includes specific procedures for teaching, reinforcing, and monitoring for all stakeholders (e.g., faculty and staff, students, parents and family, and administrators). Essentially, students’ educational experi­ ences are shaped by first clarifying and shaping the adults’ experiences in schools. By empowering all adults with clarities on what is to be taught and reinforced as well as how data will be used to inform instructional programming for stu­ dents, the system is built to encourage shared ownership of all students’ educational programming—including those with identified disabilities. More specifically, the Ci3T Implementation Manual includes structures for col­ lecting, analyzing, and interpreting several sources of data. For example, procedures for monitoring include the analysis of system-level data such as treatment integrity and social validity. In addition, student-level data such as academic and behavior screenings, attendance, and ODRs are collected. System-level and student-level data are analyzed in tandem to determine the effectiveness of the overall plan (with information also driving professional learning efforts to support instruction) and inform inclusive educational experiences for students. To illustrate, Ci3T Leadership Teams implementing a Ci3T model collect and interpret implementation data (treatment integrity and social validity) in fall and

96 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

spring of each year. These data are summarized and shared not only with the Ci3T Leadership Teams’ school and district leaders but also with faculty and staff with the goal of determining the content of ongoing professional learning activities. Student-level data should be interpreted in light of system-level data. For exam­ ple, Ci3T Leadership Teams use academic and behavior screening data collected on all students (those receiving general as well as special education programming) collected in fall, winter, and spring to (a) examine overall student performance over time (within a single academic year and across multiple school years) and (b) determine which students may require more than Tier 1 has to offer and then connect them to appropriate evidence-based practices, strategies, and programs at Tier 2 or Tier 3 (Cook & Tankersley, 2013). The Ci3T Implementation Manual also specifies Tier 2 and Tier 3 offerings. Each Ci3T Leadership Team builds inter­ vention grids that illustrate who will provide the services or programs, for which students, and under what conditions (Lane et al., 2006).The name of each support is listed with (a) a description, (b) specific inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., details of how screening data and other data sources will be interpreted), (c) data to monitor progress (as well treatment integrity and social validity), and finally (d) exit criteria indicating when an intervention is to be concluded (e.g., either because the additional support is no longer necessary or perhaps a different one is warranted). In sum, the Ci3T model has several foundational elements. First, it features all three learning domains: academic, behavioral, and social. Second, teachers employ integrated lesson planning to facilitate high-quality instruction across the three domains. Third, treatment integrity is assessed in fall and spring annually (includ­ ing school and classroom measures). Fourth, like treatment integrity, social validity is assessed in fall and spring, as well as at each level of prevention. Fifth, academic and behavioral performance is assessed for all students (general and special educa­ tion students) in fall, winter, and spring to inform instruction. Sixth, data-informed decision making is used to inform professional learning offerings (including coach­ ing) for adults as well as to differentiate instruction for students. Seventh,Tier 2 and 3 offering are clarified and made transparent and accessible to all stakeholders (Bri­ esch, Chafouleas, & Chaffee, 2018; Lane, Menzies, Ennis, & Oakes, 2018; Lane & Walker, 2015; Oakes, Lane, Cox, & Messenger, 2014).

Benefits of tiered systems Tiered systems offer potential benefits above their ability to systematically sup­ port student success. However, they may well encounter the same fate as other failed initiatives if they do not prioritize fidelity of implementation and honor a whole-child perspective by incorporating behavioral and social domains in addi­ tion to academics. Measuring the degree to which a program is used as designed is critical in determining whether it is having a positive effect and what to do if it is not. Equally important is the recognition that behavior and social-emotional

Tiered systems and inclusion

97

learning are essential for school success—and certainly for life success (Yudin, 2014). Increasing schools’ capacity to enhance student growth in these areas is no longer controversial but is not yet implemented as a regular practice in many school systems (Lane et al., 2020; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Next, we discuss what we see as three unique benefits that occur through the use of tiered systems: Structures to support process, enhanced teacher well-being, and the promotion of inclusive practices, each of which holds promise for the education of stu­ dents with identified disabilities as well as the professionals responsible for their education.

Structures to support process When district leaders commit to district-wide, strategic priorities to meet students’ academic, behavioral, and social needs, quantifiable objectives are established, and resources (e.g., time, money, professional learning) are invested to ensure goals are achieved. When these same district leaders embrace a systems approach to meet­ ing strategic priorities, a tiered model offers a resource-efficient framework for comprehensive implementation. In addition to using an established framework for planning what will be created or adopted (e.g., Tier 1 curricula, screening process, fidelity checks), structures are built to facilitate the work required in a tiered model. For example, a leadership team is developed, a procedure manual is created, and specific tasks (e.g., grade-level teams examine screening data) are delegated to appropriate stakeholders. The way a framework is used in a tiered model is novel because its flexibility allows districts and schools to adapt it to the local context, but it still provides enough structure to guide implementation and, hopefully, sustain the initiative. A framework provides clarity, guidelines for decision making (data collection, analysis, and interpretation), and an emphasis on collaboration.

Clarity Having a team representative of the school community, along with multiple points of feedback from the full faculty and staff, allows all perspectives to be considered when designing a school’s plan. In a Ci3T model, transparency is created with a written Ci3T Implementation Manual to support stakeholders in understanding how the plan is enacted and what their roles are. Given the large influx of new teachers each year in many US schools (Castro, Quinn, Fuller, & Barnes, 2018), clearly defined and written responsibilities, along with a well-defined action plan, allows teachers new to a school to be aware of what is expected of them and what to expect from others in their new school community.Transparency in purpose and role, an understanding of all stakeholders’ responsibilities, and realistic expectations of others (e.g., roles of special and general educators, parents, and administrators) may reduce stressors associated with leaving teaching, such as feeling unsupported in their work (Brunsting, Sreckovic, & Lane, 2014; Lane et al., 2013).

98 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

Decision making A core feature of all tiered models is using data to make decisions about instruc­ tional experiences for students, as well as to provide high-quality professional learning opportunities for administrators, faculty, and staff (Lane et al., 2020). A data-informed approach functions as a heuristic to guide the complicated choices school personnel must make on a near-constant basis. Tiered prevention models rely on early screening processes to detect students for whom primary prevention is successfully meeting their academic, behavioral, and social needs and to detect students for whom primary prevention is insufficient and interventions or supports are needed with the intensity of Tier 2 or Tier 3. Proactive prevention models rely on screening measures that are psychometrically sound, flexible in their use, efficient in administration, and repeatable with sensitiv­ ity to change for identifying concerns as early as possible and guiding instructional responses (Chafouleas,Volpe, Gresham, & Cook, 2010).All schools designing Ci3T models of prevention select and install academic and behavioral screening systems. Professional learning opportunities are focused on specific areas of the plan where data indicate educators need more information as noted in their social valid­ ity surveys (e.g., I don’t understand why I should no longer use my clip chart) or on their treatment integrity data (e.g., the fall survey shows 65% of educators are using behavior-specific praise when giving their PBIS tickets). Likewise, screening data indicate classes with greater student need in specific areas where resources should be allocated (e.g., instructional coaches or interventionists) or teachers who may need coaching to increase the use of low-intensity strategies to increase engage­ ment and reduce disruptions. Not only does the use of data inform implementation efforts, student outcomes, and professional learning, but the use of data for instruc­ tional decisions is a predictor of high-quality implementation and sustainability in PBIS (Coffey & Horner, 2012; McIntosh et al., 2014). Data can also be used to measure the degree to which stakeholders are imple­ menting the plan as designed (treatment integrity), their opinions about the plan (social validity), students’ responses to primary prevention, professional develop­ ment and coaching supports for faculty and staff, and the selection of and progress with interventions for students who need instruction or supports beyond primary prevention (Tiers 2 and 3; Lane, Oakes, & Magill, 2014). It has been said teaching is both a science and art, with literally hundreds of decisions made daily to maximize instructional experiences (Lane et al., 2020). Tiered systems use data-informed decision-making processes to not only inform the student experience but also the adult experience in schools—which benefits students and teachers alike.

Enhanced teacher well-being Evidence suggests teachers working in Ci3T or PBIS models may have increased self-efficacy (Kelm & McIntosh, 2012; Oakes, Lane, Jenkins, & Booker, 2013; Oakes

Tiered systems and inclusion

99

et al., in review; Ross, Romer, & Horner, 2012).When teachers feel efficacious in their work, they are more likely to implement new instructional and classroom management practices (Reinke, Herman, & Stormont, 2013) and feel able to pro­ mote positive learning outcomes for their students despite student abilities or cir­ cumstances (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).Teachers who have a strong sense of efficacy are more likely to persist when special challenges to their teaching occur (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, 2012).This is of particular importance for inclusive classrooms where general education teachers may feel underprepared to meet the diverse range of needs of their students with disabilities. Recent studies have examined the well-being of teachers working in tiered systems. Specifically, Kelm and McIntosh (2012) found that elementary teachers working in schools with PBIS models in place, with high levels of fidelity, reported a greater sense of efficacy compared to teachers in the same district whose schools were not implementing PBIS. Ross and Horner (2007) found similar results for a small sample of middle school teachers; however, fidelity of their PBIS plan was not associated with teacher stress. Ross and colleagues (2012) extended the previous findings by examining a larger sample of elementary teachers and found implementation of PBIS at the school level was positively correlated with teacher efficacy and negatively correlated with burnout (i.e., long-term stress, depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, diminished feelings of personal accomplishment; Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Burnout may be of par­ ticular concern for special education teachers (Brunsting et al., 2014). Studies of the well-being of teachers working in schools with Ci3T models show similarly encouraging results. Oakes and colleagues (2013) examined a small sample of middle school teachers’ sense of efficacy at the end of their first year implementing Ci3T. Teachers reported higher levels of personal accomplishment than a national sample but also slightly higher levels of emotional exhaustion.This may not be unexpected given their first year of a system change, but it is an indica­ tor to be mindful of when supporting schools in initial implementation of a tiered model. Higher treatment fidelity levels predicted lower depersonalization scores; however, neither social validity nor treatment fidelity scores were significant pre­ dictors of self-efficacy scores (Oakes et al., 2013). Most recently, Oakes et al. (2019) examined outcomes of teachers working in 14 elementary schools implementing Ci3T models of prevention. Findings were similar to Oakes et al. (2013). Teach­ ers at the end of their second year of implementing Ci3T showed higher levels of emotional exhaustion than a national example. However, over 80% reported high levels of personal accomplishment. Teachers also showed large magnitude differ­ ences with higher levels of efficacy in classroom management than the national sample. Additional inquiry is needed to better understand these complex relations over time (Brunsting et al., 2014).

Promoting inclusive practice Tiered systems offer a reconceptualization of inclusion by integrating inclusive practices into the structures and routines of a school. In the past, inclusion had to be

100 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

reimagined each time a school or district, or even an individual teacher, wanted to take an inclusive approach.There was no school-wide framework for ameliorating risk status before the introduction of tiered models. A tiered model focuses atten­ tion and resources in a manner that promotes systematic and integrative solutions to reducing risk, with multiple sources of data used for reliable and accurate deci­ sion making.

Intensity and consistency of intervention In tiered models of prevention, Tier 2 and Tier 3 build upon Tier 1 efforts. Thus, the strategies, practices, and programs implemented are additive in nature and do not supplant Tier 1. For example, if winter screening data suggest students may need additional support with their social skills, small groups might be formed, with this Tier 2 support beginning in January when students return from winter break. This group might include students at moderate risk for externalizing and internalizing behavior problems, as well as students who receive special education supports. Ideally, the content of these intervention groups would be built on the content taught at Tier 1 for all students.The small-group context would allow for more specific instruction to address acquisition deficits (e.g., “can’t-do” responses; Gresham & Elliott, 2017) as well as additional positive practice (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). The counselor leading the small group would communicate with the general education and special education teachers to let them know which skill sets were being addressed each week.This way, the general education, special educa­ tion teachers, and paraprofessionals could provide addition acknowledgment (e.g., behavior specific praise) for students using these skills beyond the training context (e.g., programming for generalization). With the language systems being parallel, this is a benefit for students receiving special education to access feedback from all adults—not just the special education teacher and support staff (see Common et al., 2019 for a similar illustration in four elementary schools).

Collaboration Tiered systems promote collaborative processes between general and special edu­ cation communities (McCray, Butler, & Bettini, 2014). For example, in the Ci3T model, educators across disciplines (e.g., math, reading, behavior, social-emotional learning, social skills) meet together to improve educational programs and learning environments. After creating a Ci3T Implementation Manual for their site, they have a common understanding of the comprehensive educational program avail­ able to students, a clear and transparent approach to Tiers 1–3, access to universal screening and formative data to inform instructional decisions, a shared influence on the selection and use of evidence-based Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions and sup­ ports, and a coherent early intervention and data collection process for more accu­ rate special education referrals. These processes avoid delays in providing students with services as can happen with a pre-referral process that operates in isolation. The diverse perspectives and expertise on these teams increases the likelihood of

Tiered systems and inclusion

101

communication across general and special education.Working together, educators have the unique opportunity to affect improved outcomes for students with and at risk for disabilities and school failure (Benedict, Brownell, Griffin,Wang, & Myers, 2016).

Summary In this chapter, we provided a brief overview of tiered systems, noting the differ­ ing foci of RTI, PBIS, MTSS, ISF, and Ci3T models of prevention. We focused on Ci3T, as it is the only integrated system featuring academic, behavioral, and social learning domains in one model. Next, we shared lessons learned from vari­ ous research teams on the three domains constituting the base of the Ci3T model. After describing Ci3T and noting its distinguishing features, we introduced the potential benefits of tiered systems. We contend that when implemented with integrity, tiered systems such as Ci3T have the potential to facilitate inclusion and harness the collective strengths of stakeholders committed to meeting students’ multiple needs.

References Barrett, S., Eber, L., & Weist, M. (Eds.). (2013). Advancing education effectiveness Interconnecting school mental health and school-wide positive behavior support. Baltimore, MD: Center for School Mental Health. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., . . .Tilly,W. D. (2006). Response to intervention policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Benedict, A. E., Brownell, M.T., Griffin, C.,Wang, J., & Myers, J. (2016). Leveraging profes­ sional development to prepare general and special education teachers to teach within response to intervention frameworks. In T. Petty, A. Good, & S. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of research on professional development for quality teaching and learning (pp. 43–61). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0204-3.ch003 Bergan, J., & Kratochwill,T. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 462–473. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. Briesch, A., Chafouleas, S., & Chaffee, R. (2018). Analysis of state-level guidance regarding school-based, universal screening for social, emotional, and behavioral risk. School Mental Health, 10, 147–162. Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M. A., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burn­ out: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37, 681–711. doi:10.1353/etc.2014.0032 Castro,A., Quinn, D. J., Fuller, E., & Barnes, M. (2018). Addressing the importance and scale of the US teacher shortage (UCEA Policy Brief 2018-1). Charlottesville,VA: University Council for Education Administration.

102 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

Chafouleas, S. M.,Volpe, R. J., Gresham, F. M., & Cook, C. R. (2010). School-based behavio­ ral assessment within problem-solving models: Current status and future directions. School Psychology Review, 39, 343–349. Coffey, J. H., & Horner, R. H. (2012). The sustainability of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 407–422. Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R. H., & Lee,Y. (1997). Using active supervision and precorrec­ tion to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344–363. doi:10.1037/h0088967 Common, E.A., Buckman, M. M., Lane, K. L., Leko, M., Royer, D. J., Oakes,W. P., & Allen, G. E. (2019). Exploring solutions to address students’ social competencies to facilitate school success:A usability and feasibility study. Education and Treatment of Children, 42, 489–514. Cook, B. G., Smith, G. J., & Tankersley, M. (2012). Evidence-based practices in education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham,T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook. Vol. 1:Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 495– 527).Washington, DC:American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13273-017 Cook, B. G., & Tankersley, M. (2013). Effective practices in special education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Cooper, J. O., Heron,T. E., & Heward,W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2014). CEC standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Arlington,VA: Author. Denton, C. A. (2012). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades: Some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 232–243. doi:10.1177/0022219412442155 Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22. doi:10.1177/001440296803500101 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A metaanalysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x Ervin, R. A., Schaughency, E., Goodman, S. D., McGlinchey, M.T., & Matthews, A. (2006). Merging research and practice agendas to address reading and behavior school-wide. School Psychology Review, 35, 198–223. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114, 1177 (2015). Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementa­ tion research:A synthesis of the literature.Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute,The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). Flay, B. R., Allred, C. G., & Ordway, N. (2001). Effects of the positive action program on achievement and discipline: Two matched-control comparisons. Prevention Science, 2, 71–89. Freeman, R., Miller, D., & Newcomer, L. (2015). Integration of academic and behavioral MTSS at the district level using implementation science. Learning Disabilities: A Contem­ porary Journal, 13, 59–72. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1996). Consultation as a technology and the politics of school reform: Reaction to the issue. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 386–392. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to interven­ tion:A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83, 255–268. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI:A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.

Tiered systems and inclusion

103

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2014).What is intensive instruction and why is it impor­ tant? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 13–18. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007).A model for implementing response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20. Gage, N. A., Sugai, G., Lewis, T. J., & Brzozowy, S. (2015). Academic achievement and school-wide positive behavior supports. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 199–209. doi:10.1177/1044207313505647 Gersten, R., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2011). Understanding RTI in mathematics: Proven meth­ ods and applications. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention:An alternative approach to the iden­ tification of learning disabilities. Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.2048& rep=rep1&type=pdf Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2017). SSIS social emotional learning edition classwide intervention program. New York, NY: Pearson Education. Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2000). School-wide behavior support: An emerging initia­ tive. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 231–232. Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 80–85. doi:10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4 Hoy,W. K. (2003). The organizational health inventory for elementary schools (OHI-E). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://waynekhoy.com/pdfs/ohi-e.pdf Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004). Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse. (2019). Select topics to find what works based on the evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ January, A. M., Casey, R. J., & Paulson, D. (2011). A meta-analysis of classroom-wide inter­ ventions to build social skills: Do they work? School Psychology Review, 40, 242–256. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2019 WWC. Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496979.pdf Kartub, D. T., Taylor-Greene, S., March, R. E., & Horner, R. H. (2000). Reducing hallway noise:A systems approach. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 179–182. Kauffman, J. M. (1999). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioral disor­ ders. Exceptional Children, 65, 448–468. Kauffman, J. M., Badar, J., & Wiley,A. L. (2019). RTI controversies and solutions. In P. C. Pul­ len & M. M. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention and multi-tiered systems of support (pp. 11–25). New York, NY: Routledge. Kauffman, J. M., Bruce,A., & Lloyd, J.W. (2012). Response to intervention (RtI) and students with EBD. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. Rotatori (Eds.), Advances in special educa­ tion.Vol. 23—Behavioral disorders: Current perspectives and issues (pp. 107–127). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

104 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

Kauffman, J. M., Pullen, P. L., Mostert, M. P., & Trent, S. C. (2011). Managing classroom behavior: A reflective case-based approach (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Kazdin,A. E. (1977).Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavioral Modification, 1, 427–452. Kelm, J. L., & McIntosh, K. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher self-efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 137–147. doi:10.1002/pits.20624 Lane, K. L. (2003). Identifying young students at risk for antisocial behavior: The utility of “teachers as tests”. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 360–389. Lane, K. L. (2004). Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students with emo­ tional/behavioral disorders: 1990 to present. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 462–486). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & O’Shaughnessy,T. E. (2002). Serving students with or at-risk for emotional and behavior disorders: Future challenges. Education and Treatment of Chil­ dren, 25, 507–521. Lane, K. L., Mahdavi, J. N., & Borthwick-Duffy, S. A. (2003). Teacher perceptions of the prereferral intervention process:A call for assistance with school-based interventions. Pre­ venting School Failure, 47, 148–155. Lane, K. L., & Menzies, H. M. (2003).A school-wide intervention with primary and second­ ary levels of support for elementary students: Outcomes and considerations. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 431–451. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/42899771 Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Ennis, R. P., & Bezdek, J. (2013). School-wide systems to pro­ mote positive behaviors and facilitate instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7, 6–31. doi:10.3776/joci.2013.v7n1p6-31 Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Ennis, R. P., & Oakes,W. P. (2015). Supporting behavior for school success:A step-by-step guide to key strategies. New York, NY:The Guilford Press. Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Ennis, R. P., & Oakes,W. P. (2018). Effective low-intensity strate­ gies to enhance school success:What every educator needs to know. Beyond Behavior, 27, 128–133. doi:10.1177/1074295618799044 Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Oakes,W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2020). Developing schoolwide frame­ work to prevent and manage learning and behaviors (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lane, K. L., Oakes,W. P., Buckman, M. M., & Lane, K. S. (2018). Supporting school success: Engaging lessons to meet students’ multiple needs. Council for Children with Behavior Dis­ orders (CCBD) Newsletter, 33, 8–9. Lane, K. L., Oakes,W. P., Cantwell, E. D., & Royer, D. J. (2019). Building and installing compre­ hensive, integrated, three-tiered (Ci3T) models of prevention:A practical guide to supporting school success v1.3. Phoenix,AZ: KOI Education. Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Magill, L. (2014). Primary prevention efforts: How do we implement and monitor the tier 1 component of our comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered (CI3T) model? Preventing School Failure, 58, 143–158. doi:10.1080/10459 88x.2014.893978 Lane, K. L., Oakes,W. P., & Menzies, H. M. (2014). Comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered models of prevention:Why does my school—and district—need an integrated approach to meet students’ academic, behavioral, and social needs? Preventing School Failure:Alterna­ tive Education for Children and Youth, 58, 121–128. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.893977 Lane, K. L., & Walker, H. M. (2015).The connection between assessment and intervention: How does screening lead to better interventions? In B. Bateman, M.Tankersley, & J. Lloyd (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Personal perspectives (pp. 283–301). New York, NY: Routledge. Lane, K. L., & Wehby, J. H. (2002). Addressing antisocial behavior in the schools: A call for action. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 6, 4–9.

Tiered systems and inclusion

105

Lane, K. L.,Wehby, J. H., Little, M.A., & Cooley, C. (2005a).Academic, social, and behavioral profiles of students with emotional and behavioral disorders educated in self-contained classrooms and self-contained schools: Part I—Are they more alike than different? Behav­ ioral Disorders, 30, 349–361. Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Little, M. A., & Cooley, C. (2005b). Students educated in selfcontained classes and self-contained schools: Part II—How do they progress over time? Behavioral Disorders, 30, 363–374. Lane, K. L., Wolery, M., Reichow, B., & Rogers, L. (2006). Describing baseline conditions: Suggestions for study reports. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 224–234. doi:10.1007/ s10864-006-9036-4 Lawson, G. M., McKenzie, M. E., Becker, K. D., Selby, L., & Hoover, S. A. (2018).The core components of evidence-based social emotional learning programs. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-018-0953-y Leedy, A., Bates, P., & Safran, S. P. (2004). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Improving hallway behavior using positive behavior supports. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 130–139. Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., & Beyers, S. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 257–272. doi:10.1002/pits.21596 Lewis,T. J., Powers, L. S., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomer, L. L. (2002). Reducing problem behaviors on the playground: An investigation of the application of schoolwide positive behavior supports. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 181–190. Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a schoolwide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446–459. Lloyd, J., Kauffman, J., Landrum,T., & Roe, D. (1991).Why do teachers refer pupils for spe­ cial education:An analysis of referral records. Exceptionality, 2, 115–126. Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 182–188. MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K. M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices:An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314–326. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113. McCray, E. D., Butler, T. W., & Bettini, E. (2014). What are the roles of general and special educators in inclusive schools? In J. McCleskey, N. L.Waldron, F. Spooner, & B.Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools (pp. 90–103).Abingdon: Routledge. McDougal, J. L., Graney, S. B.,Wright, J. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (2010). RTI in practice: A practical guide to implementing effective evidence-based interventions in your school. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley Publishing. McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS. New York, NY: Guilford Press. McIntosh, K., Predy, L. K., Upreti, G., Hume, A. E., Turri, M. G., & Mathews, S. (2014). Perceptions of contextual features related to implementation and sustainability of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 31–43. doi:10.1177/1098300712470723 Metzler, C.W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehen­ sive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education & Treatment of Children, 24, 448–480. Netzel, D. M., & Eber, L. (2003). Shifting from reactive to proactive discipline in an urban school district:A change of focus through PBIS implementation. Journal of Positive Behav­ ior Interventions, 5, 71–79.

106 Kathleen Lynne Lane et al.

Oakes,W. P., Lane, K. L., Cox, M. L., & Messenger, M. (2014). Logistics of behavior screen­ ings: How and why do we conduct behavior screenings at our school? Preventing School Failure, 58, 159–170. Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Jenkins, A., & Booker, B. B. (2013). Three-tiered models of pre­ vention: Teacher efficacy and burnout. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 95–126. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0037 Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Royer, D. J., Menzies, H. M., Buckman, M. M., Brunsting, N. C., Cantwell, E. D., & Schatschneider, C. (2019). Elementary teachers’ self-efficacy during initial implementation of comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered models of prevention. Manuscript submitted for review. Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 39–50. doi:10.1177/1098300712459079 Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2007). Teacher outcomes of school-wide positive behavior support. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(6). Retrieved from http://escholarship. bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol3/iss6/art6 Ross, S.W., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2012).Teacher well-being and the implementation of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 118–128. doi:19.1177/1098300711413820 Scott,T. M. (2001). A schoolwide example of positive behavioral support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 88–94. Scott, T. M., & Barrett, S. B. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged in disciplinary procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven­ tions, 6, 21–27. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to imple­ ment inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x Sprague, J.,Walker, H. M., Golly,A.,White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon,T. (2001).Translat­ ing research into effective practice:The effects of a universal staff and student interven­ tion on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 495–511. Taylor-Greene, S. J., & Kartub, D.T. (2000). Durable implementation of school-wide behav­ ior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Support, 2, 233–235. Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995).Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 253–255. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Spragues, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 194–209. Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, G. (2004). Antisocial behavior in schools: Evidence-based practices. Florence, KY: Cengage. Wallace, G., & Kauffman, J. M. (1986). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214. Woolfolk,A. E., & Hoy,W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81–91. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81 Yeaton,W., & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of suc­ cessful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 156–167. Yudin, M. (2014). PBIS: Providing opportunity. A keynote address presented at the National PBIS Leadership Forum. Keynote Address presented at the PBIS Building Capacity & Partner­ ships to Enhance Educational Reform, Rosemont, IL.

6 DISPROPORTIONALITY AND INCLUSION Adrienne D. Woods, Yangyang Wang, and Paul L. Morgan

Disability and race or ethnicity can intersect as identities that shape educational experiences (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013). Legal considerations have been afforded to students of color as well as to students with disabilities (SWD) as a result of dis­ criminatory practices and unjust segregation.The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that led to the desegregation of US schools includes the judgement that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”The first law addressing the segregation of SWD in US schools was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (public law 94–142, 1975, usually called PL 94–142).This law was followed by the Individuals with Dis­ abilities Education Act (IDEA, in 1990) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990). Section 504 of the ADA specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability within educational institutions. Collectively, these and additional laws have provided students of color and SWD with legal protections against discrimi­ nation based on race, ethnicity, or disability status as well as legal recourses when such discrimination occurs. However, as discussed elsewhere in this volume, IDEA and Brown are not inter­ changeable nor do they address the same civil rights. IDEA is a federal law; Brown is a legal decision. Under IDEA, SWD are legally entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE).A student with a disability should be educated in the LRE that is appropriate for meeting his or her individual educational needs. Decisions about the student’s educational placement (e.g., general education classroom versus self-contained classroom) should occur after two other events. The first is an in-depth assessment by a multidisciplinary team of the student’s unique educational needs, including both strengths and weak­ nesses.The second is a detailed assessment by this team of the specialized services and supports needed for the student to make reasonable educational progress.

108 Adrienne D. Woods et al.

SWD may be appropriately placed primarily outside of the general education classroom if such placement will best meet the goals and objectives for educational progress detailed in their individual education program (IEP; Mathur & Jolivette, 2012).What is appropriate for addressing one student’s disability-related educational needs may not be appropriate for addressing another student’s disability-related needs. Students with more significant disabilities (e.g., severe autism, deaf-blindness, severe intellectual disabilities, and multiple disabilities) are more likely to be edu­ cated primarily outside of general education classrooms (US Department of Edu­ cation [DoE], 2018). Such placements may better facilitate the delivery of more intensive special education services (see also Chapter 8, this volume). For example, special education settings may allow for smaller classes, more frequent motivational support and corrective feedback, and greater individualized instruction (Bateman, & Linden, 2012; Kauffman, Hallahan, Pullen, & Badar, 2018). In contrast, and unlike the continuum of alternative placements (CAP) afforded to SWD under IDEA, the Brown decision ruled that separate was never equal for students of color. At the intersection of race or ethnicity and disability are students of color who have disabilities requiring special education services. Exclusion is truly problematic if SWD are inappropriately excluded from the general education classroom because of background characteristics unrelated to the educational nature of their disability including their race or ethnicity. Although placement should occur following an assessment of the services needed for the individual student, systemic exclusion of SWD of color attributable to their race or ethnicity would be consistent with Brown’s ruling that separation based on race or ethnicity is inherently unequal.Thus, if SWD of color are more likely to be placed outside of the general education envi­ ronment relative to SWD who are White, and there are not reasonable explanations for these disparities that relate to the individual needs of the students, then such disparities may indicate a pattern of civil rights violations based on race or ethnicity (DoE’s Office of Civil Rights [OCR], 2016). In this chapter, we report on a preliminary set of analyses to investigate whether SWD of color are more likely to be placed outside of general education classrooms in the United States than similarly situated SWD who are White.We do so by using a nationally representative and longitudinal dataset and covariate control to account for alternative explanations in the placement of SWD of color outside of the gen­ eral education environment. Covariates used in the analyses include experiencing significant academic or behavioral difficulties, socioeconomic status (SES), and sex.

The disproportionate representation of students of color Students of color have often been reported to be over-represented in special educa­ tion programs relative to students who are White (e.g., Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999; Zhang, Katsiyannis, Ju, & Roberts, 2014), including in their place­ ments outside of general education classrooms. Anecdotal or descriptive reports (e.g., Dunn, 1968; OCR, 2016) and studies using aggregate-level data with sta­ tistical controls (e.g., Oswald et al., 1999; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons,

Disproportionality and inclusion

109

Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005) indicate that SWD of color are more likely to be placed outside of general education classrooms (De Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi, & Park, 2006; Fierros & Conroy, 2002) including relative to SWD who have the same disability conditions (Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006). Racial and ethnic disparities in special education have been the subject of Congressional amendments to IDEA, both in 1997 and again in 2004.The Equity in IDEA Rule (2016) expanded federal compliance monitoring requirements for significant disproportionality in special education placement as well as disability identification and discipline.The Equity in IDEA Rule is now being implemented in the United States following a federal district court’s order vacating an attempted delay to allow for further scientific study including whether the disparities result from systemic bias or from other factors. Evidence of racial and ethnic disproportionality including in special education placement has been inferred to result from systemic bias. For example, and follow­ ing Brown, disability identification was characterized as a legal “tool of racial segre­ gation” (Ferri & Connor, 2005a, p. 453; Ferri & Connor, 2005b) that schools use to maintain racial segregation (Artiles, Dorn, & Bal, 2016; Codrington & Fairchild, 2012; Kohli, Pizarro, & Nevárez, 2017; Zion & Blanchett, 2011). Reid and Knight (2006) stated that “marking students of color as disabled allows their continued segregation under a seemingly natural and justifiable label” (p. 19). Racial disparities in special education are considered a “continuing dilemma” (Waitoller & Maggin, 2018, p. 9). Others have suggested that racial and ethnic disparities in special education may be explained by greater exposure to the risk factors for disability (e.g., poverty, lead exposure, low birthweight) that then make the receipt of special education services more likely (MacMillan & Reschly, 1998; Morgan et al., 2015; Morgan, Farkas, Cook et al., 2017; National Research Council [NRC], 2002). Still others argue against this alternative explanation, positing that using middle-class White students as the “norm” against which students of color are judged “increases the likelihood that minority children will be evaluated as academically and behaviorally deficient and in need of special services” (O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006, p. 6). Recent research addressing known methodological limitations in prior work now finds that the over-representation of students of color in the U.S. special edu­ cation system is not explained by systemic bias. Instead, contrasts between simi­ larly situated students repeatedly indicate that students of color are less likely to be identified as having disabilities and to receive special education services than students who are White (Morgan et al., 2015, 2018, 2019; Morgan, Farkas, Cook et al., 2017; Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier et al., 2017). Most prior research examin­ ing racial and ethnic disparities in disability identification and special education service receipt did not adequately adjust the estimates for other factors that may confound inferences of systemic bias. For example, prior work has not accounted for the possible confounds of family economic disadvantage (Davis-Kean, 2005), chaos and lack of structure in the home environment (Garrett-Peters et al., 2016), and other factors related to the possibility of cognitive or behavioral impairments

110 Adrienne D. Woods et al.

including low birthweight status (Roberts, Bellinger, & McCormick, 2007) and nutritional deficiencies (Grantham-McGregor,Walker, & Chang, 2000). Regarding the schooling context, other possible confounds include the proportion of students attending the school who are low achieving, thereby lowering the likelihood of disability identification (i.e., the frog pond effect; Hibel, Farkas, & Morgan, 2010). The proportion of students of color attending the school has similarly been found to be inversely related to special education identification among otherwise similar students of color attending different schools (Elder, Figlio, Imberman, & Persico, 2019; Fish, 2019). Conclusions that students of color are disproportionately over­ represented in special education due to biased disability identification procedures may therefore be spurious and confounded by omitted variables that themselves explain the higher unadjusted rates of disability identification for students of color relative to students who are White (see also Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2019). The OCR (2016) recommends that research investigating bias and discrimina­ tion in special education including in disability identification and placement contrast similarly situated students. Such contrasts yield stronger evidence of discrimination because student-, family-, and school-level confounds have been accounted for (NRC, 2004). Relative to descriptive studies, research accounting for these alter­ native factors more closely evaluates whether, among similarly situated students, schools select on the basis of race or ethnicity when making decisions regarding special education placement.When experimental studies are not possible, as is the case here, covariate control can yield stronger evidence of potential discrimination than studies reporting only unadjusted descriptive statistics (NRC, 2004). More recent analyses (e.g., Elder et al., 2019; Fish, 2019; Hibel et al., 2010; Morgan et al., 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019) have adjusted for such factors. Collectively, these studies suggest that students of color are less likely to be identified as having disabilities than similarly situated students who are White. However, and to date, few studies have adjusted for potential confounds when examining racial and ethnic disparities in special education placement.

Inclusive placement of SWD of color SWD attending U.S. schools are typically educated in general education class­ rooms rather than other types of environments (e.g., separate school, residential facility). For example, the US DoE (2018) reports that (a) 63% of SWD spend 80% or more of the school day in general education classrooms; (b) 32% spend less than 80% of the school day in general education classrooms; and (c) only 5% receive services primarily outside of the general education classroom. Stu­ dents with more significant disabilities including severe autism or intellectual dis­ abilities, deaf-blindness, and other multiple disabilities are more likely to receive intensive services outside of the general education environment. In contrast, 90% of students with speech or language impairments and 70% of students with learn­ ing disabilities spend more than 80% of the school day in general education classrooms (DoE, 2018).

Disproportionality and inclusion

111

SWD of color have been reported to be placed outside of general education classrooms more often than SWD who are White (Cartledge & Dukes, 2009; Rup­ par, Allcock, Gonsier-Gerdin, 2017; Sullivan, 2011). For instance, descriptive data from the DoE (2018) indicate that 11% of SWD who are White spend less than 40% of their school day in general education classrooms.The contrasting percent­ ages for SWD who are Black or Hispanic are 17% and 16%, respectively. Such disparities have been inferred to result from racially biased practices designed to maintain racial segregation following the SCOTUS’s Brown decision (Codring­ ton & Fairchild, 2012; Ferri & Connor, 2005a; Kohli et al., 2017). However, similar to the methodological issues discussed with regard to disproportionate identifica­ tion for SWD of color, findings pertaining to the placement of SWD of color largely have been based on research not accounting for alternative explanations. For example, an alternative explanation for racial and ethnic disparities in placement outside of the general education classroom might be racial and ethnic disparities in the severity of impairment as a result of greater risk factor exposure those corre­ lated with poverty (Kim, Bal, & Lord, 2018; Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier et al., 2017; NRC, 2002). Achievement gaps between students of color and students who are White have long been documented (e.g., National Center for Education Statistics, 2018) and exist even among SWD after accounting for disability conditions and SES (Wei, Lenz, & Blackorby, 2013).Thus, if SWD of color are more likely to dis­ play significant academic or behavioral difficulties relative to SWD who are White, this may explain observed racial and ethnic disparities in placement. In contrast, if racial and ethnic disparities in placement continue to be observed after accounting for alternative explanatory factors, including a greater likelihood of experiencing significant academic or behavioral difficulties, this would provide stronger evidence of systemic bias in special education placement. Currently, US states are mandated by federal legislation (e.g., DoE’s Equity in IDEA Rule, 2016) to monitor for racial and ethnic disparities in special educa­ tion placement as well as in identification and discipline. Under these mandates, schools where SWD of color are over-placed into more restrictive settings would be required to review their special education practices, policies, and procedures as well as to reallocate up to 15% of their federal funding. While states are required to use standard metrics (i.e., risk ratios or alternative risk ratios) to identify targets for this disproportionality, there is no attempt to adjust these reporting metrics for alternative explanatory factors.Aligned with the OCR recommendations for inves­ tigating racial discrimination, we investigate whether SWD of color are more likely to be placed outside of U.S. general education classrooms than similarly situated SWD who are White. Our analyses contrast students who are observationally simi­ lar in regard to a range of measured factors including relative severity of academic or behavioral impairments.Thus, these analyses allow for a more rigorous evalua­ tion of whether placement outside the general education classroom occurs more often for SWD of color than similarly situated SWD who are White and so might result from systemic bias.These results may help inform how U.S. states should be monitoring for racial and ethnic disparities in special education placement.

112 Adrienne D. Woods et al.

Hypotheses 1

2

We expected that SWD who are of color initially would be more likely to be primarily placed outside of the general education classroom as they attended U.S. elementary schools in analyses unadjusted for alternative explanatory fac­ tors (De Valenzuela et al., 2006; Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Morningstar, Kurth, & Johnson, 2017; Skiba et al., 2006; DoE, 2018). We then expected that these racial disparities in special education placement would be explained by alternative factors including sociodemographic charac­ teristics and significant academic or behavioral difficulties (Frey, 2002; Hosp & Reschly, 2002; Morgan et al., 2015; Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier et al., 2017).

Method Dataset and sample We analyzed the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010– 2011 (ECLS-K: 2011), a nationally representative and longitudinal dataset main­ tained by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). ECLS-K: 2011 data were collected on a cohort of U.S. children followed from kindergarten (i.e., the 2010–2011 school year) through fifth grade (i.e., the 2015–2016 school year). Data were collected on child development; home and school environments; and early learning experiences from multiple sources including children, parents, early care providers, teachers, and school administrators.The ECLS-K: 2011 dataset involved nine rounds of data collection occurring in the fall and spring of kindergarten through second grade and spring of the third through fifth grades. We analyzed a sample of SWD who had accompanying special education teacher survey data. These surveys were collected once per year in the spring for students who were reported to have an IEP on file. If students had accompanying special education teacher data during at least one timepoint between first and fifth grade, we considered the students as having disabilities and so included their data. Given non-response by special education teachers, our sample is likely conserva­ tive regarding both overall size and the number of SWD primarily placed outside of general education classrooms. We were unable to weight our analyses because NCES did not construct weights to account for special education teacher non­ response in the ECLS-K: 2011. Our dependent variable was a dichotomous indicator of whether SWD were ever reported to be placed primarily outside of the general education classroom at any point between first and fifth grade (n = 440).The reference group was SWD who were reported to be primarily placed within the general education environ­ ment through fifth grade (n = 1,300).We clustered the standard errors in our analy­ ses to account for the clustering of students with schools. We round all reported sample sizes to the nearest 10 in compliance with standards for reporting restricted data by the Institute of Education Sciences.

Disproportionality and inclusion

113

About 19% of SWD had data at all spring waves between kindergarten and fifth grade.The average amount of data missing on our independent variables was 11.6%. The fewest missing data were for sex and free or reduced lunch (20% Black School >20% Hispanic School >40% Free Lunch School 20% Black >20% Hispanic >40% Free Lunch 20% Black >20% Hispanic >40% Free Lunch 20% Black >20% Hispanic >40% Free Lunch 20% Black >20% Hispanic >40% Free Lunch 20% Black >20% Hispanic >40% Free Lunch students with ID –Within-group studies of academic outcomes: 3 studies inclusive > segregated, 3 mixed findings, 3 no differences –Between-group studies of social outcomes: 6 studies nondisabled > students with ID, 3 equivocal –Within-group studies of social outcomes: 7 positive effects of inclusion, 2 positive effects of segregated placements, 4 no differences or equivocal –Few differences in time for reading instruction across settings –More individualized instruction in remedial, as opposed to general or special, education settings –A large proportion of time spent doing worksheets and individual seatwork in general and special education settings

6 themes regarding inclusive placements: parental involvement is essential, SWSD can achieve positive outcomes, SWSD can be accepted, students without disabilities can realize positive outcomes, collaboration among school personnel is essential, curricular adaptations are vital. Median percentage of non-overlapping data = 91 (range: 63–100).Two studies, both showing positive effects, were conducted in general education settings.

a In Web of Science Core Collection as of 8/18/2019.

Note. GE = general education. SWD = students with disabilities. SWSD = students with severe disabilities. ID = intellectual disabilities. LD = learning disabilities. EBD = emotional

or behavioral disorders.

Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002 (82)

Browder & Xin, 1998 A meta-analysis and review of sight 48 experimental studies (46 of which were single-case designs) (95) word research and its implications examining the effects of sightfor teaching functional reading word instruction for individuals to individuals with moderate and with moderate and severe severe disabilities disabilities Academic and social attainments of 36 studies examining the effects Freeman & Alkin, of placement on academic and children with mental retardation 2000 (91) social outcomes of students in general education and special with ID education settings

Hunt & Goetz, 1997 (96)

140 Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

Three reviews synthesized research studies on the efficacy of inclusion. In their meta-analysis, Carlberg and Kavale (1980) found a small overall effect of 0.12 favoring inclusive placement across 50 studies examining the efficacy of inclusion. Inclusive effects were most positive for slow learners (0.34) but favored special placements for students with LD and EBD (-0.29). Effects from individual studies ranged widely, from -1.98 to 1.31, and the authors interpreted overall findings as “conflicting and equivocal” (p. 304). Across 22 within- and between-group stud­ ies, Buysse and Bailey (1993) reported no differences associated with inclusion of young children for developmental outcomes but primarily positive outcomes (though some studies reported mixed or no effects) for social and behavioral out­ comes. In their review of 36 comparative studies involving the inclusion of students with ID, Freeman and Alkin (2000) found that academic and social outcomes of non-disabled students tended to be better than for included students with ID. Stud­ ies reviewed by Freeman and Akin examining outcomes of students with ID who were and were not included were mixed: three favoring inclusive placements, three with mixed findings, and three showing no differences. Three reviews examined outcomes and practices associated with inclusion. Hunt and Goetz (1997) reviewed 19 qualitative and small-n studies related to the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. They identified six themes from the studies, including that students with severe disabilities can achieve positive out­ comes and can be accepted by their peers. Given the increasing focus on inclusion and academic outcomes for students with moderate and severe disabilities, Browder and Xin (1998) identified 48 experimental studies examining the effects of sightword instruction for this group of learners. Studies showed positive effects on sight words, including in two studies conducted in inclusive settings.Vaughn et al. (2002) reviewed 16 observational studies of reading instruction of elementary students with LD and EBD. Studies showed few differences in instructional time across settings, with more individualized instruction observed in specialized rather than inclusive settings. Two reviews examined co-teaching. Scruggs et al. (2007) synthesized 32 qualita­ tive studies exploring co-teaching in inclusive settings. Among their findings, the authors reported that co-teachers generally supported the concept of co-teaching, the “one teach, one assist” model was dominant, and special education teachers often played a subordinate role. Murawski and Swanson (2001) identified only six quantitative studies examining co-teaching in inclusive settings. The overall effect across studies was positive for co-teaching (0.40), with study effects ranging from 0.08 to 0.95.The authors noted that their main finding was the scarcity of quantita­ tive data on co-teaching. The most frequently cited study on inclusion in our review is Scruggs and Mas­ tropieri’s (1996) review of 28 survey studies of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Although 65% of participating teachers supported inclusion (range across stud­ ies = 37% to 78%), only approximately half of general education teachers were willing to teach SWD (range = 41% to 92%), and only 29% agreed that they had sufficient expertise and training (range = 9% to 42%). In the final review, Trout

Highly cited research on inclusion

141

et al. (2003) reviewed the characteristics of 65 studies that examined academic outcomes for students with EBD. Twenty percent occurred in inclusive settings, 20% in self-contained classes, 17% in separate day schools, and 14% in resource rooms.

Intervention studies None of the nine intervention studies in our review used inclusion as the interven­ tion or independent variable. Rather, these studies predominantly examined the effects of interventions aimed to improve student outcomes in inclusive settings, as well as teacher and parent outcomes related to inclusion (see Table 7.3 for an overview of these studies). Five of the nine intervention studies examined the effects of interventions on learners with ASD. Researchers in three studies used single-case designs. Cihak et al. (2010) used video modeling to improve appropriate transition behavior for four elementary students with ASD. Peer training resulted in increased social inter­ actions for three included elementary-age students with ASD (Owen-DeSchryver et al., 2008).And Garfinkle and Schwartz (2002) reported that peer-imitation train­ ing resulted in increased imitative behavior, but not social interactions, for three young children with ASD and one young child with a developmental delay in an inclusive preschool. Strain and Bovey (2011) conducted a randomized control trial (RCT) to evaluate the effects of the Learning Experiences and Alternative Program (LEAP) for preschool children in 28 inclusive preschool classes. Significant positive effects were found for cognitive, language, social, and problem behavior, as well as autism symptoms. Finally, Panerai et al. (2002) examined the growth of 16 students with ASD in either inclusive settings or in a residential treatment program using the Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (TEACCH) program. Students in the TEACHH program made significant progress on 8 of 15 subscales, whereas students in the inclusion class made significant pro­ gress on only one subscale. Two studies examined interventions in inclusive settings for students with other disabilities. Harris et al. (2005) demonstrated that self-monitoring of attention and performance resulted in improved on-task behavior and academic performance for six included students with ADHD. Carter et al. (2005) reported that pairing three included adolescents with moderate and severe disabilities with two, rather than one, supportive peers resulted in increased peer interactions but not increased interactions with other classmates. Interestingly, the two most-cited intervention studies (both among the 10 mostcited studies in our search) did not examine outcomes of included students. Using a within-group design, Baker-Ericzén et al. (2005) reported that participation in an early intervention inclusion program reduced child-related causes of stress, but not actual stress for mothers of young children with autism. No effects were found for mothers of nondisabled children or for fathers. Finally, Campbell et al. (2003) showed that a course on human development with a focus on inclusion resulted

Changing student teachers’ Within-group preattitudes toward disability and post-test and inclusion

Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003 (139)

Intervention

103 parents of children Participation in with and without early intervention ASD inclusion program

Sample

Child-related causes of stress, but not actual parental stress, was significantly reduced for mothers of children with ASD. No significant differences for fathers of children with ASD or parents of typically developing children. Significant improvements in views on benefits of inclusion for a student with Down syndrome and other students in the class.

Summary of findings

274 pre-service teacher Semester-long education students course on human development with a focus on individual differences and inclusive education A functional relation was reported 4 elementary students Video modeling Cihak, Fahrenkrog, The use of video modeling Reversal (ABAB) between the intervention and single-case design with ASD delivered via a Ayres, & Smith, via a video iPod and a appropriate transition behaviors handheld device and 2010 (127) system of least prompts for all participants. using a system of to improve transitional least prompts behaviors for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in the general education classroom Self-monitoring of attention and 6 elementary students Self-monitoring Counterbalanced Self-monitoring of Harris, Danoff of attention and performance had positive effects with ADHD in multiple baseline attention versus selfFriedlander, performance on students’ on-task behavior general education across participants monitoring of academic Saddler, and academic performance; classrooms single-case design performance: Effects Frizzelle, & self-monitoring of attention among Students with Graham, 2005 had larger effects on academic ADHD in the General (101) performance. Education Classroom

Within-group preStress levels and and post-test adaptability in parents of toddlers with and without autism spectrum disorders

Design

Baker-Ericzén, BrookmanFrazee, & Stahmer, 2005 (167)

Article (# of citationa) Title

TABLE 7.3 Overview of intervention studies

Randomized, controlled trial of the LEAP model of early intervention for young children

294 children in 28 inclusive preschool classrooms

Within-group preand post-test

Over 1 year,TEACCH condition 16 children with ASD TEACCH program significantly improved on 6 (6 to 14 years of age) delivered at of 7 developmental subscales residential treatment and 2 of 8 adaptive-behavior center (control group subscales; inclusion condition attended inclusive significantly improved on only 1 classrooms with developmental subscale. support teachers) Small-group peerImitative behavior increased for Multiple baseline 3 children with imitation training all participants, but not social across participants ASD and 1 with interactions.

single-case design developmental delays (3 to 5 years of age)

Positive effects on social interactions (for 1 student a new group of peers were trained after no effect observed with initial group).

Significant effects on cognitive, 2 years of Learning language, social, and problem Experiences and behavior, as well as autism Alternative Program symptoms. for Preschoolers and Their Parents Increased rates of peer interactions Pairing included across all SWDs, no effect on students with two interactions between SWDs and (instead of one) peers other classmates. for support

Multiple baseline 2 2nd graders and 1 3 sessions of peer across participants 4th grader with ASD training single-case design and 12 classmates

Reversal (ABAB 3 included adolescents and BABA) with moderate and single-case design severe disabilities, 6 classmates

Randomized controlled trial

a In Web of Science Core Collection as of 8/18/2019.

Note.ASD = autism spectrum disorder.ADHD = Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. SWD = students with disabilities.

Carter, Cushing, Clark, & Kennedy, 2005 (86)

Effects of peer support interventions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions Owen-DeSchryver, Promoting social interactions between Carr, Cale, & students with autism Blakeley-Smith, spectrum disorders and 2008 (81) their peers in inclusive school settings Panerai, Ferrante, & Benefits of the Treatment Zingale, 2002 and Education of Autistic (79) and Communication Handicapped Children (TEACCH) program as compared with a nonspecific approach Garfinkle & Peer imitation: Increasing Schwartz, 2002 social interactions in (78) children with autism and other developmental disabilities

Strain & Bovey, 2011 (97)

144 Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

in improved views on including a hypothetical child with Down syndrome among pre-service education students.

Qualitative studies Researchers in nine of the top-cited studies on inclusion identified in our review used a qualitative design. One qualitative study was among the 10 most-cited stud­ ies on inclusion (Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, & MacFarland, 1997). Qualitative studies primarily explored teachers’ perceptions and experiences but also involved paraprofessionals, administrators, parents, and included SWD. Qualitative research­ ers reported potential benefits of inclusion but also identified barriers and potential problems.An overview of qualitative studies is shown in Table 7.4. Six of the nine studies involved inclusive teachers as participants, two of which focused on co-teaching (Mastropieri et al., 2005;Walther-Thomas, 1997).Authors identified perceived benefits and successful cases of co-teaching but also ineffec­ tive cases and perceived barriers to successful co-teaching (e.g., planning time, scheduling, caseload, administrative support, development opportunities, academic content knowledge, high-stakes testing, and co-teacher compatibility).Two studies explored the processes of change and adopting effective practices among inclusive teachers, noting barriers (e.g., lack of time, support, and understanding of the practices) and facilitators (e.g., positive effects on student performing, support, preparation, materials) of change (Gersten et al., 1995; Klingner et al., 2003). Gian­ greco et al. (1993) reported that 17 of 19 general educators reported transforma­ tive experiences while teaching students with severe disabilities, which changed their comfort and ownership of teaching these students. Finally, Florian and Spratt (2013) explored how seven beginning teachers in Scotland developed inclusive pedagogies. Two qualitative studies focused on paraprofessionals (Giangreco et al., 1997; Marks et al., 1999), finding that paraprofessionals assumed considerable responsibil­ ity in the inclusion of students with SWD. Although paraprofessionals were help­ ful in some ways, their close proximity to included students often interfered with general educators taking instructional responsibility for included students, impeded social relationships with peers, and fostered dependence. Finally, Pivik et al. (2002) interviewed 15 students with significant mobility limitations and 12 parents regard­ ing barriers and facilitators to inclusion. The authors identified the physical envi­ ronment, intentional and unintentional attitudinal barriers, and physical limitations as barriers; and environmental modifications, social/policy changes, and institu­ tional resources as facilitators.

Mixed-methods studies We identified four mixed-methods studies among the most-cited studies on inclu­ sion in our review, none among the 10 most-cited studies. Studies described, and in some cases compared, how inclusion was being implemented, educators’ percep­ tions of inclusion and inclusive practices, and student outcomes in small numbers of

Walther-Thomas, Co-teaching 1997 (86) experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time

“I’ve counted Jon”: Giangreco, Transformational Dennis, experiences of Cloninger, teachers educating Edelman, & students with Schattman, disabilities 1993 (107) Barriers and facilitators Pivik, to inclusive education McComas, & Laflamme, 2002 (91)

19 general education teachers across 10 schools

Educational teams from 16 classrooms in 11 schools

Sample

15 students with significant mobility limitations (9 to 15 years old) and 12 parents 119 teachers and Observations, semi­ structured interview, 24 administrators across 23 schools and document implementing review co-teaching

Focus group interviews

Questionnaires and interviews

Observation and Helping or hovering? semi-structured Effects of instructional interviews assistant proximity on students with disabilities

Giangreco et al., 1997 (150)

Data Sources

Title

Article (# of citationsa)

TABLE 7.4 Overview of Qualitative Studies

(Continued)

Barriers identified included the physical environment, intentional attitudinal barriers, unintentional attitudinal barriers, and physical limitations. Facilitators included environmental modifications, social/policy changes, and institutional resources. Academic, behavioral, and social benefits of co-teaching were identified for both students with and without disabilities. Problems included scheduling planning time, student scheduling, caseload concerns, administrative support, and staff development opportunities.

Instructional assistants’ proximity to students with disabilities impeded general educators’ ownership and responsibility, and instruction of nondisabled students; it also contributed to separation from classmates, dependence on adults, limited peer interactions, ineffective instruction, loss of personal control, and loss of gender identity. 17 of the 19 teachers reported transformative experiences that increased their comfort with and ownership of educating students with severe disabilities included in their classes.

Summary of findings

Title

Effective and ineffective co-teaching occurred. Mediating variables were identified as academic content knowledge, high-stakes testing, and co-teacher compatibility.

7 co-teaching teams

Paraeducators assume a high degree of responsibility for 20 paraeducators students’ academic and behavioral needs. Subthemes working with included included ensuring students is not a bother to the teacher, SWDs with significant meeting student’s immediate academic needs, serving as behavior challenges hub and expert, and advocating for inclusion. Themes included the up-and-down nature of change, the 12 inclusive teachers at anxiety inherent in change, critical differences between 1 school, and district general and special education, included SWDs being special education only one of many concerns for teachers, shifting teacher coach perceptions, and special issues with beginning teachers. 29 inclusive teachers Barriers to implementation of research-based practices from 6 elementary included lack of time, and lack of support and schools understanding of the practices. Facilitators included students liking the practices, effects on student performance, support from administration and research team, preparation, and materials. 7 1st-year teachers in Themes related to inclusive pedagogy included Scotland understanding learning, social justice, and becoming an active professional.Themes played out differently across participants.

Observations, field notes, videotapes, interviews, and artifacts

Semi-structured interviews

Observations and Enacting inclusion: interviews A framework for interrogating inclusive practice

Interviews, teacher and researcher logs, observations

Semi-structured interviews, meeting transcripts, and coaching logs

Summary of findings

Sample

Data Sources

a In Web of Science Core Collection as of 8/18/2019. Note. SWD = students with disabilities.

Florian & Spratt, 2013 (77)

Mastropieri et al., Case studies in 2005 (85) co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges Paraeducator Marks, experiences in Schrader, & inclusive settings: Levine, 1999 Helping, hovering, or (85) holding their own? Close to the classroom Gersten, is close to the bone: Morvant, & Coaching as a means Brengelman, to translate research 1995 (85) into classroom practice Klingner, Ahwee, Barriers and facilitators in scaling up researchPilonieta, & based practices Menendez, 2003 (84)

Article (# of citationsa)

TABLE 7.4 (Continued)

Highly cited research on inclusion

147

inclusive schools using both quantitative and qualitative data. Results varied across studies and across schools within studies. In one study, educators were generally positively disposed to inclusion (Idol, 2006), and student outcomes in an inclusive school were generally better than in a similar non-inclusive school in another (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). However, Baker and Zigmond (1990) indicated that significant changes were needed for successful inclusion of students with LD in one school, and Baker and Zigmond (1995) found that included stu­ dents with LD were not receiving individualized instruction in five other schools. Mixed-method studies are overviewed in Table 7.5.

Summary Perhaps the pattern that stood out to us most was the equivocal nature of find­ ings across studies. Consistent with Zigmond’s (2003) observation that “Evidence on whether students with disabilities learn more, academically or socially, and are happier in one school setting or another is at best inconclusive” (p. 196), some studies showed positive outcomes associated with inclusion, whereas others showed mixed effects or no difference, and others showed negative outcomes associated with inclusion. Intervention studies demonstrated that student outcomes in inclu­ sive setting and attitudes toward inclusion can be improved for various groups by applying effective interventions. However, as explored in the next section, many of the studies reviewed examined topics not directly related to the efficacy of inclu­ sion and reflect important limitations related to design and internal validity.

Limitations to highly cited inclusion research As with all research bases, the highly cited studies on inclusion contain important limitations that research consumers should consider when interpreting and apply­ ing their findings. In the following sections, we discuss limitations of the studies, especially related to research design and threats to internal validity.We organize our discussion by three types of studies: Non-intervention studies, intervention studies, and systematic reviews.

Non-intervention studies Quantitative non-intervention studies Original research studies that did not evaluate the effects of a researcher-controlled intervention comprised the majority of the studies in our review (k = 31, 62%). The most frequent type of non-intervention study was quantitative (k = 18). Seven of these studies examined teachers’, principals’, and peers’ attitudes toward inclu­ sion and included students. Although attitudes of these stakeholders may help to inform thinking about inclusion, attitudes are not direct determinants of quality of inclusion or inclusive outcomes (e.g., positive teacher attitudes do not guarantee

The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases

Case analysis

5 elementary schools including students with LD across 5 states

Toward inclusion of special Program evaluation using Instructional personnel and students in 8 schools within personal, structured education students 1 district identified as interviews and student in general education: among the most and least test data A program evaluation of inclusive eight schools

a In Web of Science Core Collection as of 8/18/2019.

Note. LD = learning disabilities. SWD = students with disabilities.

Baker & Zigmond, 1995 (100)

Idol, 2006 (114)

Rea et al., 2002 (115)

Students, school personnel, Case study with and parents from 1 observations, urban school planning to questionnaires, surveys, implement inclusion for and records review students with LD Archival, descriptive All 58 students with LD in comparison the 8th grade in 2 middle schools

Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs

Baker & Zigmond, 1990 (127)

Sample

Design

Title

Article (# of citationa)

TABLE 7.5 Overview of mixed-methods studies

Students in the inclusive program earned higher grades, achieved comparable or higher scores on standardized tests, committed no more behavioral infractions, and attended more days of school than students served in the pullout program Educators tended to report themselves as being skilled at or applying accommodations for SWD, as holding positive attitudes toward inclusion and teaching SWD, and as favoring inclusive placement with a special education teacher or teacher assistant. Few perceived inclusion as negatively impacting non-disabled students. Inclusion did not appear to negatively affect proficiency-test scores. Themes included schools using different models of inclusion; special education teachers taking on multiple roles; and included students with LD receiving good general educations but not individualized educations.

Findings suggest that the school will need to make fundamental changes regarding accommodating individual differences to successfully include students with LD

Summary of findings

Highly cited research on inclusion

149

successful inclusive placements). Moreover, self-reported attitudes are susceptible to social desirability bias, and many survey studies involved relatively low return rates (and non-responders may have held different attitudes than study participants). Another seven studies involved quantitatively describing and/or comparing outcomes in inclusive settings without manipulating inclusion as an independ­ ent variable. These studies might be considered natural experiments in that they evaluate the effects of inclusion when occurring naturally, rather than under the control of a researcher. Natural experiments are subject to selection bias in that differences between SWD who are and are not placed in inclusive settings may be responsible for any observed differences in outcomes, rather than the effect of inclusion. Indeed, one might expect that students who are placed in inclusive set­ tings may have greater social, behavioral, and/or academic skills in comparison to SWD placed in special settings (Semmel et al., 1979).Thus, although these studies can describe and compare outcomes in inclusive and specialized settings, they are not designed to determine whether inclusion caused those outcomes.

Qualitative and mixed-methods studies Nine of the studies identified in our review were qualitative, and four used mixed methods. Although qualitative studies can provide thick and rich descriptions of what occurs in inclusive settings, they are not designed to determine causal effects (see McDuffie & Scruggs, 2008). For example, although Mastropieri et al. (2005) and Walther-Thomas (1997) identified perceived benefits in some co-taught inclusive classes, the studies did not include the experimental controls needed to conclude that co-taught inclusive classes caused the perceived benefits.The co-taught students may have done just as well in special classes, for instance. Moreover, study par­ ticipants’ perceptions regarding the benefits and facilitators of inclusion may not be accurate.These same limitations apply to most of the mixed-methods studies as well. In one of the mixed-methods studies, Rea et al. (2002) documented that eighth graders with disabilities at an inclusive middle school earned higher grades, achieved higher or comparably on standardized tests, committed no more behavioral infrac­ tions, and had better attendance than eighth grade SWD at another middle school in the district that used a pullout model. This is another example of a natural experiment because the middle schools had adopted inclusive and non-inclusive approaches on their own.Although researchers demonstrated that the students with disabilities at the two schools did not differ significantly on age, gender, ethnic­ ity, socioeconomic status, mother’s education level, estimated cognitive abilities, or years in special education, the research design does not allow one to infer that inclusion caused observed differences in outcomes between the groups. For exam­ ple, it is possible that some other variable (e.g., an innovative principal, teachers’ willingness to try new approaches) may underlie both the adoption of inclusion and improved student outcomes at one school and that inclusion itself did not play a causal role in improving student outcomes.

150 Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

Intervention studies Nine of the studies in our review involved researchers introducing an intervention. When implemented using a group-experimental design or valid single-case design, causality can be inferred from intervention studies. Interestingly, none of the highly cited intervention studies in our review involved inclusion as the intervention, so none of the results speak to the effects of inclusive placements. Three of the four group designs used within-group designs, which Campbell and Stanley (1963) categorized as a pre-experimental design due to the lack of a control group. The remaining group design is an RCT that demonstrated the LEAP model caused sig­ nificant improvements in the outcomes of young children in inclusive classrooms, in comparison to young children in inclusive classrooms without the LEAP model (Strain & Bovey, 2011).Thus, the study provides evidence of how to make inclusive placements more effective but does not demonstrate that inclusive preschools are more or less effective than specialized placements using the same model. Five intervention studies used valid single-case designs (reversal and multiplebaseline designs). All of these studies examined the effects of interventions applied within inclusive settings, rather than the effects of inclusion. Collectively, the singlecase designs showed video modeling, self-monitoring, pairing students with dis­ abilities with two support peers, and peer training improve various outcomes (but not all outcomes examined) for included SWD.Although these single-case designs have strong internal validity, it should be noted that single-case researchers do not select the typically small number of study participants to be representative of a larger population.Thus, the positive effects of the interventions examined in these studies may not generalize to other students in other settings.

Systematic reviews Systematic reviews hold great potential for drawing research-based conclusions because findings are synthesized across multiple studies. However, syntheses reflect the limitations of the studies reviewed. For example, one should not infer causality from a review of non-experimental research. Either because of topical focus (e.g., teachers’ attitudes, prevalence of settings, effects of sight-word instruction) and/or design (e.g., survey, qualitative, descriptive) of studies reviewed, most of the reviews identified in our review do not speak to the efficacy of inclusion.We briefly discuss four reviews that did examine the efficacy of inclusion. Carlberg and Kavale (1980) reviewed 50 studies investigating the efficacy of inclusion. One important limitation of the review is that it includes within-group designs, which, as discussed previously, are pre-experimental designs from which causality should not be inferred. Moreover, Carlberg and Kavale noted that because random assignment is difficult to achieve when studying inclusion, when research­ ers utilized inclusion as an intervention, they substituted “various techniques (matched pairs, analysis of covariance, residual gain scores, and wishful thinking) . . . for random assignment” (p. 297).Thus, differences in the samples of students placed

Highly cited research on inclusion

151

in inclusive and specialized settings may explain observed differences between the groups. Carlberg and Kavale also noted that (a) researchers seldom examined or controlled for differences in teachers between settings and (b) most studies were underpowered. Finally, syntheses of intervention research are difficult to interpret when the intervention is not consistent across studies reviewed because effects derived from different interventions are being combined. Inclusion is not a welldefined intervention, and conditions and instruction likely varied considerably within and across the studies (as did conditions and instruction in the specialized settings). Buysse and Bailey (1993) reviewed 22 intervention studies examining the efficacy of inclusive placements on the social-behavioral and developmental out­ comes of young children with disabilities. Although the review included withingroup designs, the authors reported findings by study and carefully assessed prominent threats to validity for each study. Results varied across studies, but it is striking that the most internally valid studies (i.e., three single-case designs, one quasi-experimental group design, and one RCT) consistently found posi­ tive effects for social-behavioral outcomes associated with inclusion. Buysse and Bailey analyzed whether positive effects on social outcomes were due to differ­ ences between program-related variables rather than the effects of inclusion per se.They concluded that, at least for young children with mild disabilities, inclu­ sion had positive effects on social outcomes in comparison to otherwise similar specialized placements. Murawski and Swanson (2001) meta-analyzed six studies examining the efficacy of co-teaching in inclusive settings, reporting a moderately positive effect. However, Murawski and Swanson only identified six studies on the topic, and—as reviewed by Cook, McDuffie-Landrum, Oshita, and Cook (2017)—none of the studies used truly experimental designs. Five of the six studies reviewed were within-group designs (pre-experimental).The one study with a comparison group was a natural experiment in which student outcomes who were naturally educated in co-taught versus solo-taught inclusion classes were compared.Thus, it is possible that one or more variables (e.g., differences in student and/or teacher characteristics), rather than co-teaching, were responsible for differences between groups. Accordingly, research consumers should not draw firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of coteaching or inclusion from this review. Freeman and Alkin (2000) reviewed 36 studies examining the effects of inclu­ sion on social and/or academic outcomes of students with ID. Although results were mixed across and within studies, the authors concluded that studies generally showed included students with ID attained better outcomes than students with ID in special settings. However, the review included qualitative studies, studies com­ paring the outcomes of included students with ID to their non-disabled peers, natural experiments, as well as true experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Thus, although some studies in the review may have strong internal validity, others did not. Research consumers should therefore be cautious about drawing conclu­ sions from the review as a whole.

152 Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

Summary The highly cited studies on inclusion in our review reflect important limitations that research consumers should consider when interpreting and applying study findings. For example, most studies used research designs that are not intended to establish causality. Furthermore, many of the studies focused on topics that do not directly determine the efficacy of inclusion (e.g., attitudes toward inclusion). Although intervention studies demonstrate that effective interventions can improve outcomes in inclusive settings, they do not speak to the efficacy of inclusion in comparison to special settings. These limitations of highly cited inclusion studies are also reflected in the highly cited systematic reviews of the inclusion literature. Taken as a whole, the highly cited research on inclusion does not yield firm conclu­ sions regarding the efficacy of inclusion, other than claims that inclusion is wholly effective or ineffective do not appear justified based on the research. Accordingly, we recommend that special education stakeholders consider research on inclusion using an evidence-informed rather than an evidence-based model.

Evidence-based and evidence-informed practice Scientific research involves applying the scientific method to better understand the world and add to the collective knowledge base. Researchers formulate a question; state a testable hypothesis; and then evaluate the hypothesis by collect­ ing and analyzing objective, empirical data. By relying on logical and transparent analysis of objective, empirical measures of participant behavior, scientific research is generally accepted to be a relatively reliable and valid approach for generating knowledge claims in the social sciences.Though science does not produce abso­ lute knowledge and all individual studies contain error, scientific research likely involves less error and bias than other approaches to knowing such as personal experience, authority, and tradition. In this section, we discuss two approaches for thinking about how special education stakeholders can use research evidence on inclusion to improve practical decisions: evidence-based practice and evidenceinformed practice.

Evidence-based practice Recent legislation in education (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA) and spe­ cial education (e.g., IDEA) emphasizes the important role of scientific research in education policy and practice. Indeed, the primary thrust of contemporary evidence-based reforms in education and other applied fields such as medicine is to align policy and practice with research evidence—in other words, to reduce the research-to-practice gap (Cook & Farley, 2019). The logic of applying evidencebased reforms in education is straightforward: Student performance will generally improve if practitioners implement (a) fewer instructional practices and policies shown by research to be generally ineffective and (b) more practices and policies

Highly cited research on inclusion

153

shown by research to be generally effective. Evidence-based practice may be espe­ cially important for SWD, who need highly effective instruction to reach their goals (Vaughn & Dammann, 2001). The model of evidence-based practice (i.e., practitioners addressing practical questions by searching, appraising, synthesizing, and applying research evidence; see Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002) seems most applicable when applied to discrete, well-defined instructional practices and programs with bodies of high-quality experimental evidence that clearly indicate whether the practice or program is generally effective for improving a given outcome for a particular population of learners (Cook & Cook, 2013). That is, if one knows that a practice works for improving a targeted outcome for a targeted population of learners, one should implement it; if the practice has been shown to be ineffective, it should not be implemented. Although there are likely many benefits to basing practice on policy, there are important limitations to evidence-based practice. Most broadly, research evi­ dence is not the only relevant consideration for practitioners and policy makers when making educational decisions. From its conception, evidence-based practice has been conceptualized as judiciously using the best available research evidence in combination with other, equally important factors, such as clinical expertise and client (e.g., student and family) preferences and values, when making prac­ tical decisions (Haynes, Devereaux, & Guyatt, 2002; Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996). Indeed, in their seminal paper on evidence-based practice, Sackett et al. (1996) warned about practice “becoming tyrannized by evi­ dence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropri­ ate for an individual” (p. 72). In the case of inclusion, it is important for educators to carefully consider legal mandates (e.g., the LRE mandate in IDEA), student and family goals and preferences, and individual student needs and characteristics in addition to research evidence when making decisions about whether and how to include SWD. Additionally, when research bases yield mixed or equivocal findings, consist largely of research designs that do not establish causality, or examine a program or policy that is not operationally defined—all of which is the case with inclusion— it is problematic to base policy and practice on research. For example, research cannot determine whether broad programs or policies such as inclusion are gen­ erally effective. Inclusion can be implemented in any number ways, both effective and ineffective.The overall effectiveness of inclusion likely cannot be determined conclusively by research because inclusion is not a meaningful independent varia­ ble that is consistently applied across (and often within) studies.As such, Zigmond (2003) suggested that the long history of efficacy studies examining whether inclusion is effective has asked the wrong question. Especially given the limita­ tions of the inclusion research base, rather than base practice directly on such research findings, perhaps special educators should seek to inform their think­ ing with research evidence as appropriate to maximize outcomes for individual learners.

154 Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

Evidence-informed practice Because of the aforementioned factors, research on inclusion is unlikely to provide clear answers to the question of whether inclusion is generally effective and should be implemented broadly. As Zigmond (2003) noted, this is not the relevant ques­ tion. Recognizing that research can provide important, if incomplete, information for helping to inform practical decisions, Nevo and Slonim-Nevo (2011) recom­ mended a model of “evidence-informed practice” rather than “evidence-based practice.” Evidence-informed practice suggests that research can enrich and inform practice but that practical decision should be based on multiple factors including, but not limited to, research findings. What might evidence-informed practice look like related to inclusion? Rather than turning to research in the hope of finding out whether inclusion is generally effective at improving particular outcomes for a population of students and should or should not be used, educators might make such decisions in accordance with the law (i.e., based on the decision of the IEP team, which includes the student’s parents or guardians, and in accordance with IDEA’s LRE and CAP mandates) on the basis of the unique needs and goals of students and their families. Research can help to inform such decisions and can be used to enhance the likelihood of students meeting their individualized goals in the selected placement setting. For example, although it should not be the only or deciding factor when making placement decisions, an IEP team might consider research showing that teachers with greater efficacy tend to hold more positive attitudes toward inclusion and included SWD when determining whether and with which teacher a student might be included. Additionally, the intervention research contains many studies that can guide stake­ holders on how to increase the effectiveness of inclusive or specialized placements once a student has been placed. For instance, if an education team is concerned about reports that an included elementary student with ASD has difficulty transi­ tioning between activities in an inclusive class, they might consider implementing video modeling based on Cihak and colleagues’ (2010) research findings. In sum, we are not suggesting that research is meaningless or should be disregarded. Rather, given the nature of the inclusion research base, we believe it is most appropriately used to inform and improve practice for individual learners.

Limitations As with any study, our review contains limitations. Related to our search for highly cited studies, we used only one electronic data base in our search, searched only journals identified as special education journals by Journal Citation Record, and searched for limited phrases related to inclusion.As such, the search likely does not identify all relevant research studies.We used academic citations as the sole indicator of influence of research studies, which is an incomplete and flawed metric. Finally, because it takes many years for studies to accrue a large amount of citations, many of the studies in our review are dated. A review of more recent research may have yielded different conclusions.

Highly cited research on inclusion

155

Conclusion In this chapter we examined the research on inclusion for SWD. Specifically, we reviewed 50 of the most highly cited research studies published on this topic. The majority of highly cited studies did not use experimental designs to examine meaningfully whether inclusion causes improved outcomes for SWD. Results were mixed and equivocal across studies as to the potential benefits of inclusion. Thus, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of inclusion from the research reviewed, other than the research does not support claims that inclusion is unequivocally effective or ineffective.Although research indicates that inclusion has resulted in successful outcomes, claims that research clearly confirms the benefits of inclusion are not supported by our review. Given the nature of the research base on inclusion, we recommend that special educators consider the research evidence on inclusion using an evidence-informed, rather than an evidence-based, model.

References *Study included in the review. *Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school dis­ tricts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300. doi:10.1177/001440290507100305 *Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accom­ modate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526. doi:10.1177/001440299005600603 *Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities:Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Spe­ cial Education, 29, 163–180. doi:10.1177/002246699502900207 *Baker-Ericzén, M. J., Brookman-Frazee, L., & Stahmer, A. (2005). Stress levels and adapt­ ability in parents of toddlers with and without autism spectrum disorders. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 194–204. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.4.194 Bateman, B. D. (1994). Who, how, and where: Special education’s issues in perpetuity. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 509–520. doi:10.1177/002246699402700410 *Browder, D. M., & Xin,Y. P. (1998).A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe dis­ abilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153. doi:10.1177/002246699803200301 *Bruininks, V. L. (1978). Actual and perceived peer status of learning-disabled stu­ dents in mainstream programs. The Journal of Special Education, 12, 51–58. doi:10.1177/002246697801200109 *Buysse, V., & Bailey, D. B., Jr. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomes in young children with disabilities in integrated and segregated settings: A review of comparative studies. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 434–461. doi:10.1177/002246699302600407 Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. *Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28, 369– 379. doi:10.1080/13668250310001616407

156 Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

*Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 295–309. doi:10.1177/002246698001400304 *Carter, E.W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students’access to the general curriculum and social interactions.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 15–25. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.1.15 *Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C.,Ayres, K. M., & Smith, C. (2010).The use of video modeling via a video iPod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 103–115. doi:10.1177/1098300709332346 *Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included stu­ dents with mild and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 203–213. doi:10.1177/002246690103400403 Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71–82. doi:10.1177/0022466911420877 Cook, B. G., & Farley, C. (2019).The research-to-practice gap in special education. In D. F. Bateman & M. L.Yell (Eds.), Current trends and legal issues in special education (pp. 110–125). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin. Cook, S. C., McDuffie-Landrum, K. A., Oshita, L., & Cook, B. G. (2017). Co-teaching for students with disabilities: A critical and updated analysis of the empirical literature. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), The handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 233–248). New York, NY: Routledge. *Cooney, G., Jahoda, A., Gumley, A., & Knott, F. (2006). Young people with intellectual disabilities attending mainstream and segregated schooling: Perceived stigma, social comparison and future aspirations. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 432–444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00789.x *Farmer, T. W., & Farmer, E. M. (1996). Social relationships of students with exceptionali­ ties in mainstream classrooms: Social networks and homophily. Exceptional Children, 62, 431–450. doi:10.1177/001440299606200504 *Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and Prac­ tice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 165–174. doi:10.2511/rpsd.27.3.165 *Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28, 119–135. doi:10.1080/0885625 7.2013.778111 *Freeman, S. F., & Alkin, M. C. (2000). Academic and social attainments of children with mental retardation in general education and special education settings. Remedial and Spe­ cial Education, 21, 3–26. doi:10.1177/074193250002100102 Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicaliza­ tion of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294–309. https://doi. org/10.1177/001440299406000402 Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600304 *Garfinkle, A. N., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Peer imitation: Increasing social inter­ actions in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclu­ sive preschool classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 26–38. doi:10.1177/027112140202200103 *Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Chil­ dren, 62, 52–66. doi:10.1177/001440299506200105

Highly cited research on inclusion

157

*Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). “I’ve counted Jon”:Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabili­ ties. Exceptional Children, 59, 359–372. doi:10.1177/001440299305900408 *Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S.W., Luiselli,T. E., & MacFarland, S. Z. (1997). Helping or hov­ ering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 7–18. doi:10.1177/001440299706400101 Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 452–476. doi:10.1177/1049731502012003007 Gresham, F. M. (1982). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social skills train­ ing with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48(5), 422–433. https://doi. org/10.1177/001440298204800506 *Harris, K. R., Danoff Friedlander, B., Saddler, B., Frizzelle, R., & Graham, S. (2005). Selfmonitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of academic performance: Effects among students with ADHD in the general education classroom. The Journal of Special Educa­ tion, 39, 145–157. doi:10.1177/00224669050390030201 Haynes, R. B., Devereaux, P. J., & Guyatt, G. H. (2002, March–April). Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. ACP Journal Club, 136(2), A11–A14. doi:10.7326/ACPJC-2002-136-2-A11 *Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3–29. doi:10.1177/002246699703100102 *Idol, L. (2006).Toward inclusion of special education students in general education:A pro­ gram evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77–94. doi:10.1177 /07419325060270020601 *Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facili­ tators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411–429. doi:10.1177/001440290306900402 *Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., & Van Houten, E. (2010). Social participation of students with special needs in regular primary education in the Netherlands. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57, 59–75. doi:10.1080/10349120903537905 *Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclusive settings: Helping, hovering, or holding their own? Exceptional Children, 65, 315–328. doi:10.1177/001440299906500303 *Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs,T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi,W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Inter­ vention in School and Clinic, 40, 260–270. doi:10.1177/10534512050400050201 McDuffie, K.A., & Scruggs,T. E. (2008).The contributions of qualitative research to discus­ sions of evidence-based practice in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 91–97. doi:10.1177/1053451208321564 *Murawski,W.W., & Swanson, L. H. (2001).A meta-analysis of co-teaching research:Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258–267. doi:10.1177/074193250102200501 Nevo, I., & Slonim-Nevo,V. (2011).The myth of evidence-based practice:Towards evidenceinformed practice. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1176–1197. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq149 *Owen-DeSchryver, J. S., Carr, E. G., Cale, S. I., & Blakeley-Smith, A. (2008). Promoting social interactions between students with autism spectrum disorders and their peers in inclusive school settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23, 15–28. doi:10.1177/1088357608314370 *Panerai, S., Ferrante, L., & Zingale, M. (2002). Benefits of the treatment and education of autistic and communication handicapped children (TEACCH) programme as com­ pared with a non-specific approach. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 318–327. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.00388.x

158 Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook

*Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive educa­ tion. Exceptional Children, 69, 97–107. doi:10.1177/001440290206900107 *Praisner,C.L.(2003).Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 135–145. doi:10.1177/001440290306900201 *Rea, P. J., McLaughlin,V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203–222. doi:10.1177/001440290206800204 Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53(5), 391–398. https://doi. org/10.1177/001440298705300501 *Rowley, E., Chandler, S., Baird, G., Simonoff, E., Pickles,A., Loucas,T.,& Charman,T. (2012). The experience of friendship, victimization and bullying in children with an autism spec­ trum disorder: Associations with child characteristics and school placement. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1126–1134. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.03.004 Ryndak, D. L., Jackson, L., & Billingsley, B. (2000). Defining school inclusion for students with moderate to severe disabilities: What do experts say? Exceptionality, 8, 101–116. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX0802_2 Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine:What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 *Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. P. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and inservice teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27, 51–68. doi:10.1 080/08856257.2011.613603 *Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers’ perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18–27. doi:10.1177/074193259101200404 *Scruggs,T. E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996).Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74. doi:10.1177/00144 0299606300106 *Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416. doi:10.1177/001440290707300401 Semmel, M. I., Gottlieb, J., & Robinson, N. M. (1979). Mainstreaming: Perspectives on edu­ cating handicapped children in the public school. Review of Research in Education, 7, 223– 279. doi:10.3102/0091732X007001223 *Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., Bardon, J. N., & Widaman, K. F. (2007).A national study of youth attitudes toward the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 435–455. doi:10.1177/001440290707300403 *Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A. B., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72, 411–424. doi:10.1177/001440290607200402 *Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as fac­ tors in special education referral. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81. doi:10.1177/002246699302700105 *Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998).Teacher, student, and school attrib­ utes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–497. doi:10.1177/002246699803100405 Stainback,W.,& Stainback, S. (1984).A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51(2), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298405100201

Highly cited research on inclusion

159

*Strain, P. S., & Bovey, E. H. (2011). Randomized, controlled trial of the LEAP model of early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 133–154. doi:10.1177/0271121411408740 *Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and place­ ment of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334. doi:10.1177/00 1440291107700304 *Trout, A. L., Nordness, P. D., Pierce, C. D., & Epstein, M. H. (2003). Research on the aca­ demic status of children with emotional and behavioral disorders:A review of the litera­ ture from 1961 to 2000. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 198–210. doi:10. 1177/10634266030110040201 Vaughn, S., & Dammann, J. E. (2001). Science and sanity in special education. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 21–29. doi:10.1177/019874290102700107 *Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). The effects of inclusion on the social functioning of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 599– 608. doi:10.1177/002221949602900604 *Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD:A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 2–13. doi:10.1177/00224669020360010101 *Wagner, M., Friend, M., Bursuck, W. D., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Sumi, W. C., & Epstein, M. H. (2006). Educating students with emotional disturbances: A national per­ spective on school programs and services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 12–30. doi:10.1177/10634266060140010201 *Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395–407. doi:10.1177/002221949703000406 Yell, M. L. (2019). The law and special education (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education ser­ vices? Is one place better than another? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 193–199. doi: 10.1177/00224669030370030901

8 INCLUSION AND STUDENTS WITH SEVERE, SENSORY, AND MULTIPLE IMPAIRMENTS Jason C. Travers, Heather J. Forbes, Jenee Vickers Johnson, and Kevin M. Ayres

There has been considerable and ongoing debate about inclusion in special educa­ tion (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Imray & Colley, 2017; Kauffman, Anastasiou, Badar,Travers, & Wiley, 2016). Initially, the debate was focused on promoting access to neighborhood schools, where students with disabilities (SWD) were taught in classrooms intended to provide highly specialized instruction. However, as access to neighborhood schools was achieved, additional concerns mounted about the methods of instruction for SWD and the classrooms in which they were taught. This led to a largely theoretical and ideological discussion about how SWD should access education in public schools (i.e., the regular education initiative, REI). Pro­ ponents of the REI argued for the merger of general and special education with rhetoric like: Students are more alike than different, so truly “special” instruction is not required; good teachers can teach all students; all students can be provided with a quality education without reference to traditional special education categories; general education classrooms can manage all students without any segregation; and physically separate education [is] inherently discriminatory and inequitable. (Kavale & Forness, 2000, p. 281) Although proponents of the REI agreed on inclusive education for most stu­ dents with disabilities, they disagreed about whether all students with disabilities could be included in general education. Some proponents suggested the initia­ tive should focus on inclusion of students with milder, high-incidence disabili­ ties. Others argued for inclusion of all SWD in general education regardless of severity. Debate continued when standards-based reform and academic account­ ability became national policy. Questions arose about whether and how all SWD

Inclusion and severe disabilities

161

should be included in the general education curriculum.These debates shaped the contemporary state of inclusive education that Kavale and Forness (2000) aptly described as a “state of flux” (p. 287) characterized by “ideological divide” (p. 279). Perhaps no students are as impacted by the state of flux of inclusive education as students with severe, sensory, and multiple impairments (i.e., students with severe disabilities; SWSD). This chapter explores various conceptual and practical issues associated with inclusive education for SWSD.We begin by briefly exploring what defines inclusive education.We describe two distinct but related conceptualizations of inclusion: Inclusion as the setting of services and inclusion as access to the general education curriculum.We then shift to discuss how the general education curricu­ lum does not sufficiently represent what SWSD must be taught in preparation for adult life.This implies a need to provide an individualized curriculum that usually is significantly different from the general education curriculum.We argue that special education for SWSD begins with the organization and delivery of effective inter­ ventions and supports that lead to realization of a shared vision for the individual’s life.We attempt to clarify whether and how SWSD might be effectively educated in inclusive settings and contend that instruction based on an individual’s strengths, preferences, interests, and needs should be prioritized over access to the general education curriculum. Ultimately, we conclude that SWSD should receive an indi­ vidualized educational program of specialized services, instruction, content, and supports that are unlikely to be effectively delivered in general education settings.

Defining inclusive education for students with severe disabilities The decades of discussion, debate, and spirited argument about inclusive education permeate special education journals and texts. Despite the rich discussion, there remains no agreement among special education researchers, thinkers, profession­ als, and policy makers about what inclusive education is or its effects on SWSD. Inclusion as the setting or location of services is perhaps the most concrete (albeit disputed) conceptualization.This conceptualization entails the provision of special education and related services in places where non-disabled peers are educated.The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) mandates a continuum of alternative placements (CAP) in which special education services can be provided to meet the needs of individual students. Some placements on the continuum are deliberately not inclusive. For example, home-based services are appropriate for SWSD who have medical conditions that prevent them from regu­ larly attending school. Similarly, some SWSD require a specialized school setting where their unique medical, behavioral, academic, social, and/or sensory needs can be met (e.g., schools for the deaf, schools for individuals with extreme self-injurious behavior).These settings probably cannot be considered inclusive in the habeas cor­ pus sense described by Kauffman and Badar (2020). In contrast, providing all special education and related services in the generical education setting at the neighbor­ hood school seems consistent with bodily inclusion of SWSD.

162 Jason C. Travers et al.

Other (probably more common) circumstances between these two extremes complicate conclusions about whether a student is receiving an inclusive educa­ tion. A SWSD may receive 30 minutes of physical therapy twice per week in a therapy room and receive all other services in general education settings.We suspect this is consistent with what most professionals would consider inclusive education. A SWSD who attends a specialized classroom for half of the school day and spends the remaining time in general education settings may or may not be considered by professionals to be receiving an inclusive education. Conversely, a SWSD who spends a substantial majority of the school day in a specialized classroom while only accessing general education settings during special classes (e.g., art, music, library, physical education) and lunch time may not be considered by many professionals to be receiving an inclusive education. Yet, this student attends their neighbor­ hood school and spends a part of the day with non-disabled peers.We are unsure which of these and similar examples qualify as inclusive education, although we acknowledge none of these examples reflect “fully inclusive” education (where every student with a disability spends their entire school day in general education environments). However, these distinctions are unimportant, and clarifying them is unlikely to provide practical value to professionals who serve SWSD. More time in general education settings is not inherently better than less time. Importantly, special education was not conceived, designed, or intended to maximize the time SWSD spend in general education settings. Arguments for inclusion as the setting of services often focus on changing atti­ tudes of teachers and non-disabled peers. These arguments appear motivated by beliefs that improved outcomes for SWSD will be achieved by activism for social change.We contend that changing teacher and peer attitudes about disabilities does not improve the knowledge or skills of SWSD—there is no evidence or theo­ retical foundation for this claim. Negative attitudes about SWSD are mitigated by improving the competence of SWSD despite negative attitudes. In other words, empowerment of SWSD by way of education seems critical for advancing a more inclusive society. Special education and related professionals must not let concerns about atti­ tudes or beliefs take precedent over the provision of effective instruction that leads to tangible progress and realization of the shared vision outlined for each SWSD they serve. Although inclusion for social change does not preclude the possibility of educational benefit, it is inappropriate to place SWSD in inclusive settings as a means for achieving social change. SWSD are not instruments for the ideological and social goals of a third party.To the contrary, we believe empowering SWSD in ways that support achievement of their own life goals is a more appropriate way to advance toward a more accepting and inclusive society. A second and heavily promoted conceptualization for inclusive education relates to accessing the general education curriculum. The rationale regarding access to the general education curriculum is rooted in and reflected by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Edu­ cation Act. A main tenet of NCLB was standards-based reform that emphasized

Inclusion and severe disabilities

163

accountability (i.e., penalties) for schools where students did not meet academic standards as measured by formal assessment. In other words, the law required every student, regardless of his/her unique circumstances, to meet grade-level academic standards (notably, the law allowed states to exempt 5% of students from stand­ ardized assessment and to use alternate assessments for 1% of students—mostly SWSD). Special education leaders who supported NCLB lauded its emphasis on measurable academic outcomes as well as its high academic expectations for SWD (including SWSD).They interpreted NCLB’s mandate for assessment of the general education curriculum as a mandate for SWSD to be taught that curriculum (Cole, 2006; Thompson & Thurlow, 2001) The progressive nature of public education and special education in particular is the public investment in an educated populace. Educated individuals live bet­ ter and more fulfilling lives, experience less suffering, and contribute to human flourishing. The general education curriculum arguably represents what knowl­ edge and skills a community (e.g., district, county, state) believes will be valuable to the individual and best contribute to the community. The general education curriculum reflects a belief that a majority of learners will master the content and, consequently, experience some benefit due to that mastery. For example, reading (at a particular “grade level”) is an expected outcome of public education for the vast majority of students, and the curriculum outlines the scope and sequence of experiences that are likely to produce that outcome. The fact that every public school in the United States teaches students to read (or perform arithmetic, solve mathematics problems, understand science, etc.) should not surprise anyone. Nor should people be surprised that inclusive education proponents perceive access to the general education curriculum as the means for ensuring the right to an educa­ tion for SWSD (Courtade, Spooner, Browder, & Jimenez, 2012). An emphasis on the general education curriculum may appear appropriate, just, or necessary for achieving better outcomes for SWSD.This, however, seems a flawed presumption based on perceptions the general education curriculum is a prescription for ensuring SWSD achieve valuable outcomes. A majority of children who master the general education curriculum will become adults who are capable of achieving some or all of their goals, but master­ ing the general education curriculum does not guarantee any particular, desirable outcome.A variety of factors can impinge on personal achievement despite mastery of the general education curriculum, including factors unrelated to school or the general education curriculum (e.g., parent and child mental health, deleterious effects of poverty, violence, impairments resultant of disability). Conversely, many factors might prevent mastery of the general education curriculum but not impede overall success. For example, complete paralysis of the arms may prevent a student from mastering the general education handwriting curriculum, but the student might nonetheless learn to functionally type using eye gaze technology.Therefore, the general education curriculum cannot be viewed as a prescription for success. Some students who master the general education curriculum will not experi­ ence the fruits associated with it. Other students who do not master the general

164 Jason C. Travers et al.

education curriculum (because they instead mastered other skills) may experience more valuable outcomes than they would achieve by laboring at general educa­ tion content. Importantly, special education stakeholders charged with providing an individualized education to SWSD should understand the general education cur­ riculum is not an intervention, support, or related service and does not guarantee ipso facto educational benefit to SWSD.

Specialized education for students with severe disabilities Specialized education for SWSD typically begins by formulating a vision for the student’s immediate and distal future. Stakeholders, including family, other relevant members of the community, and the SWSD (when appropriate) work with profes­ sionals to generate a depiction of the ideal outcomes of the student’s education. This vision may encompass partial or complete mastery of specific academic, social, communication, physical/mobility, adaptive, employment, recreation, leisure, and other skills. Stakeholders develop short-term goals with related objectives for realiz­ ing the shared vision. In other words, stakeholders must identify what will be taught to support goal attainment and progress toward the vision, which may or may not include content from the general education curriculum.This approach to instruc­ tion is the foundation of an individualized or specialized education for SWSD. It is an acknowledgement that the general education curriculum represents what is likely to benefit most (but not all) students and that an individualized curriculum is necessary for SWSD. An individualized curriculum is a description of the knowledge and skills a person needs to be successful for achieving a particular goal. By beginning with the end in mind, an individualized curriculum contributes to a task analyzed, stepwise organization of prerequisite skills to be mastered in a given timeframe. In this sense, an individualized curriculum describes what must be taught (i.e., what a learner must be able to say and/or do) relative to a particular outcome.Although access to the general education curriculum may be wholly or partly necessary for realizing a shared vision for a SWSD, prioritizing access to the general education curricu­ lum over other aspects of education may undermine such efforts. For example, Ayres, Lowery, Douglas, and Sievers (2011) explained how a parent of a SWSD was dismayed by professionals who prioritized the general education curriculum over daily living skills like toileting and oral hygiene. This tendency to prioritize academic skills is consistent with a prescriptive view of the general education cur­ riculum. It illustrates how, despite good intentions, prioritizing general education curriculum over an individualized (and arguably more holistic) education can con­ flict with or impede progress toward the team’s shared vision. At the same time, exposure and access to general education content need not always be contingent on its relevance to a shared vision. It may be just as important to provide a SWSD opportunities to engage with content (in inclusive or special­ ized settings) to discover a previously unknown interest, strength, or preference. Indeed, an important part of education is exposure to new and stimulating ideas

Inclusion and severe disabilities

165

and experiences. Conversely, repeated attempts to expose a SWSD to content that does not lead to the discovery or development of new interests, strengths, or prefer­ ences cannot be considered valuable beyond recognizing the need to advance to new content. Persistent exposure to irrelevant or aversive content is incompatible with a specialized education. Exposure to novel experiences notwithstanding, deciding whether and to what extent an inclusive education ought to be provided to SWSD can be challeng­ ing. Although inclusive education proponents have argued for access to the general education curriculum as a fundamental right or a means of complying with the law (Cole, 2006; Cole,Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Courtade et al., 2012), it seems indefen­ sible to suggest that all SWSD should be included for part or all of their school day. Such suggestion conflicts with a value for individualized education. Accordingly, the challenge is to decide how to provide meaningful inclusive education to SWSD and to avoid wasteful, ineffective, or potentially harmful applications of inclusive education.

Planning meaningful inclusion Figure 8.1 shows what must be provided to ensure meaningful inclusion of SWSD. First, the focus of instruction (i.e., curriculum) must be relevant to real­ izing the shared vision for the student’s future. Stakeholders must determine whether the SWSD is being included to prepare for or participate in the general education curriculum. If the general education curriculum or activity does not match with the shared vision (as evidenced by alignment with IEP goals and objectives that are informed by the shared vision), then inclusive education is not likely justified.  Curriculum must be personally meaningful and relevant to the shared vision for the student’s future.  Instructional procedures delivered in general education environment(s) have been proven effective for SWSD via high-quality, experimental research.  Intensity of instruction in general education environment(s) is reasonable for timely mastery of IEP and/or curricular goals.  Behavioral interventions and supports delivered in general education environment(s) benefit the SWSD, minimize disruptions, and prevent harm. Preparation for General Participation in general Education Curriculum education curriculum o General education o Curricular outcomes environment(s) offers or (including related IEP relevant and/or motivating goals) are essentially the opportunities to embed same for the SWSD as practice of IEP goals. general education peers. FIGURE 8.1

Criteria for meaningful inclusion of students with severe disabilities

Note: SWSD = student with severe disabilities. All criteria should be met to justify inclusion.

166 Jason C. Travers et al.

Second, instructional procedures used in the general education setting should be demonstrably effective for SWSD.This means what is taught must be delivered via instructional methods that have been found effective by a sufficient body of high-quality experimental research. If the curriculum is appropriately individual­ ized but instructional procedures to teach the curriculum are not evidence-based, then inclusive education is not justifiable. Third, a relevant curriculum must be taught with evidence-based practices with sufficient intensity. This means SWSD must have access to a sufficient number of opportunities to respond in order to benefit from inclusive education. If the curric­ ulum is relevant and evidence-based practices are used, but instruction is delivered with insufficient intensity, then inclusive education is not justifiable. Finally, SWSD often require behavioral interventions and supports that pre­ vent inappropriate behavior while also teaching appropriate behavior. A behavior intervention plan that effectively minimizes or eliminates disruptive and harmful behavior must be in place along with the aforementioned components to justify inclusion of SWSD. Each of these criteria are reflected in Figure 8.1 and discussed in more detail below.

Meaningful curriculum Meaningful inclusion occurs when outcomes consistent with the shared vision for the SWSD (i.e., meaningful outcomes) can be achieved in general education set­ tings. In turn, meaningful outcomes can only be realized by operationalizing what the student is expected to do. Operationalized outcomes typically can be found in the goals and objectives of the individualized education program (IEP). The IEP goals include an observable and measurable description of expected student responses. Operational definitions within IEP goals help educational teams specify precisely when the meaningful outcomes they envisioned are achieved.These goals also help the team determine the likelihood that meaningful outcomes can be achieved in general education settings. Importantly, achieving meaningful student outcomes requires focus on and practice of the operationalized outcomes. Mean­ ingful outcomes cannot be achieved when the primary focus is on the materials used or the location of instruction. A variety of goals may be addressed meaningfully within general education settings. An important distinction for educational teams to consider is whether a student is included due to participation in or preparation for the general education curriculum. Some SWSD may be included in general education settings because IEP goals are consistent with the instructional outcomes of the general educa­ tion curriculum. For example, an IEP goal for a first grade SWSD that includes letter-sound correspondence for decoding consonant-vowel-consonant words may be consistent with the general education curriculum. Similarly, an IEP goal for a tenth grade SWSD that includes preparing simple meals might be consistent with the curriculum in a home economics course. In some (probably very rare) cases, a SWSD may have current knowledge and skills necessary to participate in parts

Inclusion and severe disabilities

167

of the general education curriculum without any supports, accommodations, or modifications. For example, some students with severe autism demonstrate hyper­ lexia, which is a precocious ability to decode simple and/or sophisticated words (Castles, Crichton, & Prior, 2010; Nation, Clarke,Wright, & Williams, 2006). Such students may not need specialized instruction for decoding and may be able to fully participate in decoding components of the general education reading curriculum. These examples illustrate how IEP goals and/or individual strengths can match the general education curriculum. Accordingly, SWSD may be able to meaningfully participate in the general education curriculum alongside their general education peers. Participation in the general education curriculum requires goals identified for the SWSD and general education peers to be similar, if not identical. For example, a SWSD may achieve the same general education outcome as peers via differ­ ent sense and response modes (e.g., hearing a question and speaking the answer versus reading and writing). The SWSD may also achieve the same goal but be required to emit fewer responses (10 single-digit addition problems versus 20). Similarly, a SWSD may be required to achieve only specific types of general educa­ tion outcomes (e.g., answer only literal comprehension questions rather than literal plus inferential questions). In all cases, however, their participation in the general education curriculum is contingent on achieving the same outcomes as general education peers.This similarity of outcomes facilitates meaningful inclusion of the SWSD in general education settings. Many (if not most) SWSD will not participate in the general education curricu­ lum because they require instruction to learn skills that prepare them for the general education curriculum. Several skill areas that do not typically comprise the general education curriculum are predictive of academic improvement and school achieve­ ment. These skill areas include but are not limited to communication and lan­ guage (Forget-Dubois et al., 2009), behavioral regulation (McClelland et al., 2007), social competence (Malecki & Elliott, 2002), and motor skills (Grissmer, Grimm, Aiyer, Murrah, & Steele, 2010). SWSD who demonstrate significant needs in one or more of these areas may require focused instruction to learn relevant skills prior to meaningful participation in the general education curriculum. For example, the aforementioned students demonstrating hyperlexia are likely to have significant difficulties answering questions about what they read due to weaknesses in com­ munication and language (Nation et al., 2006; Ricketts, Jones, Happé, & Charman, 2013). Such students will require focused language and communication instruction prior to meaningful participation in reading comprehension components of the general education curriculum. SWSD who do not participate in the general education curriculum might, nonetheless, be meaningfully included in general education settings.This can occur when instruction to achieve IEP goals can be partially or wholly embedded within general education activities. For example, specific social and communication skills may be necessary for students to benefit from the general education science cur­ riculum.A SWSD might be included in the general education environment during

168 Jason C. Travers et al.

recess, lunch time, or other social times of the school day in order to practice and master these social and communication skills. Similarly, a SWSD might access a general physical education class to improve the core body strength necessary to comfortably participate in an art class curriculum. Also, some general education activities may contribute to high motivation to perform skills that are unrelated to the general education curriculum. For example, listening to music and playing musical instruments might be highly preferred activities for a SWSD. Accordingly, a general education music class may provide naturally motivating opportunities to embed goals related to requesting preferred items (e.g., musical instruments, songs) and imitating simple motor behaviors (e.g., imitating how the teacher and/or peers play instruments). These examples illustrate how IEP goals and general education activities can be aligned to support meaningful inclusion despite disparate general education and special education outcomes. Not all alignment is of equal value for SWSD, which makes meaningful inclu­ sion particularly difficult for this population. As previously mentioned, mere exposure to or use of general education settings and materials do not define the “meaningfulness” (Ayres et al., 2011) of an outcome. Outcomes are meaningful if they contribute to the shared vision for the student’s immediate and distant futures, and instruction to achieve outcomes that do not contribute to this vision must be questioned. For example, Mims, Browder, Baker, Lee, and Spooner (2009) attached three-dimensional objects described in grade-level stories (e.g., flower, gum, rib­ bon) to pages within storybooks. The researchers then taught SWSD to match identical objects to the objects within the books during read-aloud activities.This outcome may seem like a feasible way to include SWSD in an activity related to the general education curriculum (i.e., reading comprehension). However, feasible out­ comes are not always meaningful outcomes. An educator considering this activity is responsible for justifying that matching story-specific objects contributes equally or better to the shared vision for the student’s future than instruction in other skills. Including a SWSD in a general education activity simply because some form of participation is possible does not constitute meaningful inclusion. Self-care skills are particularly difficult to teach meaningfully in inclusive settings. Proficiency in self-care skills underpins independence and quality of life for indi­ viduals with and without disabilities. Although non-disabled children acquire selfcare skills outside of school settings, LEAs are responsible for instruction of these skills for students with disabilities (Kruelle v. New Castle County School District, 1981; IDEIA, 2004). Often, SWSD require intense and sustained instruction to acquire essential self-help skills (Blum,Taubman, & Nemeth, 2004), including toilet train­ ing, independent feeding, dressing and undressing, bathing and personal hygiene, and preparing food.When SWD cannot complete these tasks independently, they are forced to rely on someone else to manage their needs. For example, menstrual suppression methods are commonly applied to individuals with disabilities who cannot independently care for their menstrual needs (Wilbur, Torondel, Hameed, Mahon, & Kuper, 2019), and individuals who cannot consume enough calories orally often need others to provide supplemental or all nutrition via gastronomy

Inclusion and severe disabilities

169

tubes. Unsurprisingly, independence in self-care skills predicts post-school employ­ ment (Carter, Austin, & Trainor, 2012), independent living (Test et al., 2009), and community participation (Kozma, Mansell, & Beadle-Brown, 2009). Failure to sufficiently teach self-care skills in favor of the general education curriculum to SWSD may constitute a denial of the rights to the free and appropriate publication education (FAPE) required by the IDEIA (2004). An emphasis on access to the general education curriculum and settings makes instruction of self-care skills challenging. The general education curriculum is designed for the majority of students and not necessarily crafted to meet the unique needs of SWSD. Although the importance of self-care skills is well recognized, some have argued that academic content should comprise the majority of a stu­ dent’s educational program (Courtade et al., 2012), and others have suggested that self-care skills should be delayed or deprioritized if incompatible with general edu­ cation settings (Snell & Farlow, 1993). Instructional time is finite and allocating this precious resource to instruction in the general education curriculum takes time that otherwise could be devoted to more relevant skills. It is true that some self-care skills can be taught inclusive settings, but targeting skills unaddressed in the general education curriculum makes inclusive practices (e.g., embedded instruction) unnecessarily difficult. Embedding a social skills goal into a morning greeting routine may be feasible, but effectively embedding a dress­ ing and undressing goal into any general education routine is more challenging. Indeed, a student could practice some undressing skills within natural routines (e.g., taking off and putting on a jacket during arrival/dismissal and recess, dressing and undressing in a locker room before P.E.), but these naturalistic opportunities may be insufficient because SWSD often require repeated practice to acquire self-care skills. Importantly, self-care skills necessary for independent functioning evolve with student age, and these skills are rarely addressed in the general education curriculum. A first grade SWSD may have an IEP goal related to independently brushing teeth, but a middle school female might have an IEP goal for menstrual care. Occasionally, general education curriculum covers self-care skills. For example, general educa­ tion students often learn about the reproduction systems and menstruation, often in intermediate and secondary grades. However, the curriculum may not include the explicit instruction and repeated practice necessary to teach a middle school girl with severe disabilities to change a pad. In this circumstance, the content of the student’s self-care IEP goal and the general education curriculum are similar, but the SWSD likely requires additional opportunities and component skill instruction to learn to change a pad independently. For example, evidence suggests specialized interventions involving practicing changing pads on a doll (Alungtağ & Çalbayram, 2016; Ersoy, Tekin-Iftar, & Kircaali-Iftar, 2009) and video modeling (Ariyanti & Royanto, 2017) can effectively teach menstrual care to SWSD. However, individuals without disabilities do not need this specialized instruction to learn menstrual care, and such interventions would stigmatize SWSD when implemented in general education settings.

170 Jason C. Travers et al.

Self-care instruction is often delivered as an individualized intervention because it is almost never covered in the general education curriculum at a sufficiently high intensity for SWSD. This means nearly all self-care instruction for a SWSD in the general education environment will likely be delivered on a one-to-one basis using methods that are not applied with the student’s peers. Such instruction in general education environments may stigmatize and undermine the dignity of the SWSD. Most, if not all, non-disabled peers do not learn to brush their teeth, void in the toilet, feed themselves, wash their face, or complete a load of laundry at school. First graders who see a SWSD leave the classroom every hour to go to the bathroom may perceive that student as immature or younger. Middle school girls may be uncomfortable listening to their peer review a task-analysis for chang­ ing a menstrual pad and perceive their peer as less capable. High schoolers may be confused or distracted by their peer learning to use a telephone in math class.Thus, the benefits of the general education curriculum for SWSD who need ongoing instruction for self-care are unclear. The most dignifying instruction protects the student’s privacy and results in the most efficient acquisition of essential self-care skills. In most cases, such instruction is most appropriate in specialized and not inclusive settings.

Meaningful instructional procedures Additional conditions can influence whether SWSD will access meaningful edu­ cation in inclusive environments. Special education for SWSD requires effective instruction delivered with sufficient intensity to produce an intended (and meas­ ured) benefit. Instruction is the arrangement of a scope and sequence of anteced­ ent and consequent stimuli meant to evoke a particular (and socially significant) response. For example, a teacher might arrange a situation in which a student reaches for a preferred item but is prompted to instead pick up a symbol repre­ senting that item and deliver the symbol to the teacher. The teacher responds by delivering the preferred item to the student as if she has requested it (i.e., Picture Exchange Communication System; Frost & Bondy, 2002).This three-term contin­ gency is the fundamental unit of all teaching (Albers & Greer, 1991) and can be combined with various prompts and prompt-fading strategies, reinforcing conse­ quences, and additional teaching units to produce increasingly complex responses. Such arrangements are organized based on prior evidence and are also subjected to further investigation to clarify what instructional procedures reliably produce desired effects for specific individuals. When a sufficient number of high-quality studies accrue, then confidence about the value of the instructional procedure is increased and may result in classifying it as evidence-based practice. Educators who serve SWSD are ethically obliged to rely on instructional pro­ cedures that are likely to benefit their students while avoiding instructional proce­ dures that are unproven, disproven, or otherwise questionable (Travers, 2017).This means educational environments where demonstrably effective instructional proce­ dures are not used should be avoided in favor of those that do. For example, it could

Inclusion and severe disabilities

171

be construed unethical to include a SWSD in a general education classroom that relies heavily or exclusively on instructional procedures that have not been found effective by a sufficient number of high-quality experimental studies. If general education settings rely on instructional procedures that are not evidently effective, then it is inappropriate to include such students in those settings. However, effec­ tive instruction alone is not sufficient for ensuring meaningful benefit or outcome. Effective instruction must also be delivered with sufficient intensity.

Sufficient instructional intensity Many SWSD require instruction at higher intensities than their general educa­ tion peers. Intervention intensity refers to the number of opportunities to respond (OTR) to an intervention (Warren, Fey, & Yoder, 2007). Typically, intervention intensity is measured by (a) number of OTRs per session (or day), (b) the fre­ quency of sessions, and (c) the duration of the intervention period (Codding & Lane, 2015; Yoder & Woynaroski, 2015). For example, a SWSD may receive an intervention that entails the application of evidence-based procedures such that 60 OTRs per 1-hour session are provided.The student may receive the one-hour session on five school days per week for a period of nine weeks in order to receive the expected benefit (as indicated by progress monitoring). If, however, the appli­ cation of the same procedures only allowed 30 OTRs per 30-minute session with 3 sessions per week, then the intervention may not produce the expected benefit. This discrepancy between degrees of intensity highlight the practical significance of this concept. More specifically, if an evidence-based intervention is applied with insufficient intensity, then SWSD will not likely benefit from the intervention. This is the case even when professionals apply the intervention with high fidelity. Thus, mere application of evidence-based practices in general education settings is insufficient for determining whether an environment is appropriate for achieving IEP goals. Capturing or contriving enough opportunities for practice within general edu­ cation activities can prove difficult. For example, Calculator (2009) reported daily data for a third grade SWSD who was included in all general education environ­ ments. Calculator’s results indicated the participant received an average of 7.7 OTR to IEP goals per class period.These data illustrate how relatively few opportunities to learn can occur despite careful and collaborative planning to educate a SWSD in general education settings.We therefore suggest professionals determine whether a SWSD is acquiring skills at a sufficient rate by projecting the student’s current rate of progress toward IEP goal mastery (usually one year for IEPs). Increasing intensity of instruction can be a sound first step when SWSD are not progressing on goals at a sufficient rate, but intensity may not be feasibly increased in general education environments. If the required level of instructional intensity is not occurring or feasible within general education environments, then the SWSD should instead receive some or all instruction in specialized environments conducive to the inter­ vention intensity necessary for achieving satisfactory progress.

172 Jason C. Travers et al.

Meaningful behavioral supports Finally, SWSD may engage in behaviors that disrupt or impede their learning or the learning of their peers. Similar to other instructional procedures, behavioral supports grounded in high-quality experimental evidence and delivered at suf­ ficient intensities are more likely to produce intended benefits. Function-based interventions guided by a functional behavior assessment have been shown to be more effective in meeting behavioral needs than interventions selected without consideration of function (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2019). Accordingly, SWSD who have behavioral needs should be included in educational settings in which empirically supported, function-based interventions can be implemented at inten­ sities required for behavior reduction.Alternatively, students should not be included in educational settings in which they will receive unproven or imprecise behavioral supports at insufficient intensities. Although behavioral needs do not and should not preclude inclusion in general education settings by default, they can be difficult to manage in general education settings. Even dedicated and well-trained educators can find effective behavioral supports for SWSD difficult to achieve within general education. For example, Mims et al. (2009) removed one SWSD from the aforementioned read-aloud activ­ ity because the student’s self-stimulatory behaviors interfered with participation in the activity. It may be that specialized settings for instruction reduce or prevent behavior that interferes with educational progress. The intensity of behavioral interventions can also contraindicate implementa­ tion in general education settings. For example, Hagopian, Boelter, and Jarmolowicz (2011) reviewed studies in which functional communication training to reduce significantly disruptive behaviors resulted in additional disruptive behaviors. Specifi­ cally, replacement communication responses occurred at such high rates they could not be consistently reinforced. Some interventions to manage this problem involved reinforcing every communication response emitted for 45 seconds followed by a 15-second break during beginning intervention stages (Hagopian et al., 2011).The high intensity of these interventions and the high probability of disrupting learning would warrant behavioral intervention in a specialized setting. However, behavioral needs of SWSD can have repercussions that are more dangerous than merely dis­ rupting the learning of others.They can also result in physical harm to the student, peers, and/or school staff. Non-disabled peers are entitled to a safe learning space free of fear from injury to their body and harm to their education. Students who engage in severe aggression, property destruction, self-injurious behaviors, and/or other dangerous behaviors are entitled to supports and services in a setting that offers the lowest risk of harm to themselves and others. Such settings are nearly always outside of general education environments and are necessary until effective behavioral supports minimize if not completely eliminate the potential for harm.

Conclusion All SWSD should receive special education and related services based on their unique needs, and this includes instruction in various settings consistent with

Inclusion and severe disabilities

173

progress toward and realization of the shared vision. Although some SWSD may receive some of their education in general education settings, we believe mean­ ingful inclusion of SWSD is difficult to achieve. We have proposed what we believe are essential criteria for ensuring SWSD are provided a meaningful edu­ cation in inclusive education settings.There may be additional criteria necessary for justifying inclusive education for SWSD. However, we believe, irrespective of setting, that individualized curricula taught with evidence-based practices deliv­ ered at sufficiently high intensity, along with relevant behavioral interventions and supports, are essential components of special education. If general education environments do not include these features, then they are unlikely to confer edu­ cational benefit to SWSD. Importantly, separate settings in which these features are not evident cannot be called specialized education settings, although we think specialized settings are more conducive to such an arrangement.That is, we sub­ mit that it is more often feasible to provide a meaningful education to SWSD in specialized rather than general education settings.This implies SWSD will more often receive special education and related services in specialized settings where instruction is not only more effective but may preserve the dignity and safety of students with and without disabilities. As Zigmond and Kloo (2017) noted, special and general education are and must be different, and this is especially the case for SWSD.

References Albers, A. E., & Greer, R. D. (1991). Is the three-term contingency a predictor of effective instruction? Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 337–354. Alungtağ, S., & Çalbayram, N. Ç. (2016).Teaching menstrual care skills to intellectually disa­ bled female students. Journal of clinical nursing, 25, 1962–1968. Ariyanti,T. D., & Royanto, L. R. (2017). The effectiveness of social stories and video modeling in improving self-care skills in female adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities during menstrual periods. Presented at the International Conference on Intervention and Applied Psychol­ ogy, Depok, Indonesia, 2017. Paris, France:Atlantis Press. Ayres, K. M., Lowery, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth:What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21. Blum, N. J.,Taubman, B., & Nemeth, N. (2004).Why is toilet training occurring at older ages? A study of factors associated with later training. The Journal of Pediatrics, 145, 107–111. Calculator, S. N. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 93–113. Carter, E.W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment out­ comes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 50–63. Castles, A., Crichton, A., & Prior, M. (2010). Developmental dissociations between lexi­ cal reading and comprehension: Evidence from two cases of hyperlexia. Cortex, 46, 1238–1247. Codding, R. S., & Lane, K. L. (2015). A spotlight on treatment intensity: An important and often overlooked component of intervention inquiry. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 1–10.

174 Jason C. Travers et al.

Cole, C. M. (2006). Closing the achievement gap series: Part III.What is the impact of NCLB on the inclusion of students with disabilities (Education Policy Brief). Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy. Cole, C. M.,Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004).Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136–144. Cooper, J. O., Heron,T. E., & Heward,W. L. (2019). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Hobo­ ken, NJ: Pearson Education. Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3–13. Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ersoy, G., Tekin-Iftar, E., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2009). Effects of antecedent prompt and test procedure on teaching simulated menstrual care skills to females with developmental dis­ abilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 54–66. Forget-Dubois, N., Dionne, G., Lemelin, J.-P., Pérusse, D., Tremblay, R. E., & Boivin, M. (2009). Language mediates the relation between home environment and school readiness. Child Development, 80, 736–749. Frost, L., & Bondy, A. (2002). Picture exchange communication system training manual (2nd ed.). New Castle, DE: Pyramid Educational Consultants, Inc. Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J.,Aiyer, S. M., Murrah,W. M., & Steele, J. S. (2010). Fine motor skills and early comprehension of the world:Two new school readiness indicators. Developmen­ tal Psychology, 46, 1008–1017. Hagopian, L. P., Boelter, E.W., & Jarmolowicz, D. P. (2011). Reinforcement schedule thinning following functional communication training: Review and recommendations. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4, 4–16. Imray, P., & Colley,A. (2017). Inclusion is dead: Long live inclusion. New York, NY: Routledge. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). (Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990). Kauffman, J. M., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J.,Travers, J. C., & Wiley, A. L. (2016). Inclusive edu­ cation moving forward. In J. P. Bakken & F. E. Obiakor (Eds.), Advances in special educa­ tion. Vol. 32: General and special education in an age of change: Roles of professionals involved (pp. 153–177). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279–296. Kozma, A., Mansell, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2009). Outcomes in different residential settings for people with intellectual disability: A systematic review. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114(3), 193–222. Kruelle v. New Castle County Sch. Dist., 642 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1981). Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement:A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1–23. McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes,A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959. Mims, P. J., Browder, D. M., Baker, J. N., Lee,A., & Spooner, F. (2009). Increasing comprehen­ sion of students with significant intellectual disabilities and visual impairments during shared stories. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 409–420. Nation, K., Clarke, P.,Wright, B., & Williams, C. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 911–919.

Inclusion and severe disabilities

175

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat., 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§6301 et seq. (2002). Ricketts, J., Jones, C. R. G., Happé, F., & Charman, T. (2013). Reading comprehension in autism spectrum disorder: The role of oral language and social functioning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 807–816. Snell, M. E., & Farlow, L. J. (1993). Self-care skills. Instruction of Students with Severe Disabili­ ties, 4, 380–441. Test, D.W., Mazzotti,V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://edu cation.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html Travers, J. C. (2017). Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven practices in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52, 195–203. Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research:A miss­ ing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77. Wilbur, J., Torondel, B., Hameed, S., Mahon, T., & Kuper, H. (2019). Systematic review of menstrual hygiene management requirements, its barriers and strategies for disabled peo­ ple. PLoS One, 14, e0210974. Yoder, P. J., & Woynaroski, T. (2015). How to study the influence of intensity of treatment on generalized skill and knowledge acquisition in students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 152–166. Zigmond, N. P., & Kloo,A. (2017). General and special education are (and should be) differ­ ent. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 249–262). New York, NY: Routledge.

9 INCLUSION OF ACADEMICALLY

ADVANCED (GIFTED) STUDENTS

Carolyn M. Callahan, Jonathan A. Plucker, Stuart Gluck, and Carlos Rodriguez

In the special education literature, inclusion generally refers to the practice of edu­ cating children with learning disabilities and other types of disabilities in the regular education/general education classroom. The concept of least restrictive environ­ ment (LRE) in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) led educators to provide the opportunities for students with disabilities (SWD) to be educated with non-disabled peers to the greatest extent appropriate.The directive indicated these students should have access to the general education curriculum or any other program that non-disabled peers would be able to access. Inclusion was the natural extension of this directive to many educators. Consideration of inclusion or pro­ viding the least restrictive environment for academically advanced or gifted stu­ dents requires one to reverse or invert nearly all conceptions surrounding both the exceptionality being considered and the options for delivery of instruction—both in terms of place and of instructional strategies. Obviously, the first consideration in definitions is the nearly universal exclu­ sion of discussions of inclusion for gifted students in the special education or the general education literature. Even in the giftedness literature, the word inclusion is not a common term. The ways in which the concept of inclusion comes to the fore in the literature in gifted education is through discussions of differentiation in the general education classroom (e.g., Tomlinson, 2015), cluster grouping (e.g., Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011; Gentry, 2014), other forms of grouping students for purposes of instruction (e.g.,Vogl & Preckel, 2014), or some combination of these strategies (e.g., Matthews, Richotte, & McBee, 2013; Park & Datnow, 2017). However, some assumptions regarding education of gifted students are similar to broader discussions of inclusion. For example, inclusion for gifted students as a vehicle for social justice is frequently debated in school districts, with several Author Note: The authors appreciate the editorial assistance of Mary Simonsen during the preparation of this chapter.

Inclusion of gifted students

177

recent debates on advanced learning in several major US urban districts (e.g., San Francisco, New York) having that focus. In the field of gifted education, the social justice argument focuses on accusations that by segregating the gifted from other students, gifted students are privileged by being afforded advantages through the instruction provided in separate classes or even through the transmittal of unspoken (or perhaps sometimes articulated) messages of superiority that relate to the person in conjunction with the ability or level of achievement. The second assumption stems from an underlying premise that having gifted students in the general education classroom will benefit the other, less advanced students in that classroom. Some argue that having gifted students in the class­ room raises the level of classroom discourse, with all students benefiting from the higher level of discussions of content and process. Others offer the argument that gifted students in the general education classroom will enhance learning as gifted students participate in learning groups as tutors or teachers. Finally, some offer the argument that gifted students serve as role models of learning and achievement to other students in heterogeneous classrooms.These and related issues have been hotly debated for decades (see, e.g., Benson, 2002; Bernal, 2003; Smith, 2006). In this chapter, we address two questions: Can inclusion be an effective way to address the needs of gifted students? If so, what conditions are necessary for this to occur? In the following sections, we attempt to answer these questions by noting the philosophical justifications for education of gifted students in both inclusive and non-inclusive contexts, reviewing research on whether the educational needs of advanced students are met in inclusive classrooms, and identifying key features of what it would take to achieve acceptable levels of intellectual development for gifted students in inclusive educational contexts.

Philosophical considerations What is our responsibility in educating gifted students? To evaluate inclusive education or any educational approach with respect to gifted students requires that we know against what goals or standards we are assessing the strategy. In turn, we must con­ sider two fundamental questions from the philosophy of education.What are the aims and functions of education, and what constitutes justice regarding the distribution of educational opportunities to students of different ability levels? We do not presume to answer these questions thoroughly, but we suggest that we should judge the success of the practice by whether it promotes or hinders a range of positional and non-positional educational goods for gifted students.We should not evaluate it by its net effect across all students, nor by whether it generally helps students achieve some minimum thresh­ old of adequacy for outcomes. Rather, our central concern should be to distribute educational opportunity equally for students with the same talents and motivation and thus maximize the individual potential of each student, including gifted students. Philosophers and educators have proposed many aims for education.These aims include: preparing students for employment; preparing students to be democratic citizens; developing critical-reasoning skills; fostering curiosity and inquisitive­ ness; enhancing worthwhile dispositions or attitudes in students; maximizing the

178 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

intellectual potential of students; allowing one to experience the inherent goods of education; producing knowledge for society; maximizing the economic or tech­ nological benefits for society; and so on.The justifications for any of these aims are controversial, as are arguments for whether we should adopt a singular aim or a collection of aims. Furthermore, even if we accept a particular aim or group of aims, accounts of their meaning or of the means to achieve them remain equally contro­ versial. For example,Aristotle and Kant both supported autonomy as an educational goal but differed sharply in explicating that concept. By straightforward examination, the possible aims of education seem prima facie to lie along two orthogonal axes: One from a focus on the needs of the individual student to those of society, and the other from a focus on pragmatic skills and goods to theo­ retical or higher goods and ideals.The former continuum is self-explanatory. For the latter, we would consider job skills or economic impacts to be more pragmatic, whereas maximizing the potential for a young person to flourish as an adult would be more theoretical. Philosophers sometimes call the former situated goods and the latter non­ situated.We might thus create a matrix with the vertical axis representing a spectrum from serving the needs of the individual (I) to those of society (S) and the horizontal axis representing a spectrum from practical (P) to theoretical (T) learning (Figure 9.1). Societal

Practical

Theoretical

Individual FIGURE 9.1

Inclusion of gifted students

179

Any articulation of the goals of education falls somewhere within this matrix. If one argues, for example, that the purpose of education is to provide an individual with the minimum practical skills necessary to secure and retain employment suf­ ficient for economic security, then this proposal would fall in the P-I quadrant and likely far to the lower left in our diagram. Aristotle’s sophisticated discussion in Book viii of the Politics would likely be focused somewhere within the T-S quadrant (Figure 9.2). As the extended shape for Aristotle’s proposal suggests, most realistic accounts are complex.They typically include a collection of multiple goals.These goals, or the center of mass of these collections of aims as the case may be, would likely not fall at the extremes along either axis. Furthermore, the majority of thinkers regard education as serving both individuals and society in some respects and as including aspects of both practical and theoretical learning. Given the diversity and complexity of theories on the aims of education, we wish to remain agnostic about such matters and instead suggest that we evaluate inclusive education for gifted students by considering how it compares to alternate approaches in its effect on a broad range of goals, across these spectrums from indi­ vidual to societal and from situated to non-situated.That way, we address realistic,

Societal

Aristotle’s Politics

Practical

Theoretical

Individual Is

Employable

Individual FIGURE 9.2

.

180 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

complex, and multi-faceted accounts. We also allow readers to choose their pre­ ferred theories.We can do so by thinking about how the provision of educational opportunities, whether via inclusive education or another approach, would be fair and just. What is just regarding resources and providing educational opportunities? That education is a good seems relatively uncontroversial. As such, the distribution of educational opportunities is of vital importance. People generally have the intuition that there should be equality of educational opportunities.The two questions that follow, given the diverse goals of education discussed above, are: Should there be only one justified approach for distributing educational resources, and what does equality of educational opportunity mean? The labor market is competitive. Employers strive to hire the most qualified candidate, not simply a qualified candidate. Education for labor market suc­ cess is therefore positional, on the one hand, meaning it is a good whose value depends on one’s relative standing. On the other hand, education for human flourishing is non-positional. The success of others does not compromise an individual’s ability to be intellectually curious or appreciate the arts. In fact, the facility of others to enjoy the arts may well increase one’s ability to do so as well.We may pursue an adequacy approach for non-positional goods but some other sense of equality for distributing educational opportunities relevant to positional goods. Distributive principles might need to change as we vary our educational goals. Educational opportunities are those opportunities that aim to enable individu­ als to acquire knowledge and certain skills and to cultivate certain capacities.We have encountered one approach to “equal”1 distribution: Adequacy, in the sense of every student meeting a specific educational threshold, such as the minimum capabilities to function as a citizen within a democracy. This approach is some­ times termed sufficientism. Another approach is insistence upon equality either of inputs (e.g., per pupil funding) or of outputs (e.g., mastery of specific skills as shown in test results or performance). While equality might mean rigid equality of inputs or outputs, it could also be responsive or relative to needs or to talent. The former would be something like spending the same amount on every pupil. But following the latter we might see equality of opportunity as being achieved when students receive services appropriate to their needs—with special needs students receiving special services—when everyone with similar talent gets the same results or when those with the same natural potential are provided the same opportunities. Gifted students represent a unique subpopulation of students with regard to equality of educational opportunities. In as much as they are the best students, should we reserve the best educational opportunities for them? Does egalitarian­ ism require instead that we educate all students the same? Or, as Adler suggested, is the best education for the best students the best for everyone? More generally, is it fair—or even advantageous—to provide different or distinct educational programs to gifted students?

Inclusion of gifted students

181

Although scholars may appeal to various moral or political approaches, debates about fairness and justice regarding educational opportunities have quite under­ standably centered for some time on the philosophical work of John Rawls. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls (1971) makes clear that his Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEO) principle requires that citizens with the same talents and motivation have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor.“In all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed” (Rawls, 2001, p. 44). Critics have argued that FEO is insufficiently egalitarian, a claim rebut­ ted by many defenders, and we see no reason to abandon his masterful and hugely influential position. From behind the veil of ignorance, would we all not want everyone to have the opportunity to maximize individual intellectual talents, no matter the potential with which they were born?2 Besides, presumably we would not want to end up with a scenario like that depicted in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron,” with heavy weights inhibiting the movements of the athletic and radios disrupting the thoughts of the intelligent to make sure every­ one is somehow equal. Granted, the story is a case of demanding rigid equality of outputs, but a recent historical example illustrates the dangers of demanding overly rigid equality of inputs. In Greece, notions of democratic education led to the implementation of an education system in which all students received essentially the same education (i.e., the same resources, content, pedagogy, and pacing) regardless of their ability levels. Gifted students were stifled in their learning and development. Many left Greece for educations abroad more tailored to developing their talents. Numerous scholars and foundations have argued that the resulting brain drain was a contributing cause in Greece’s economic troubles and government debt crisis following the financial downturn of 2007–2008.3 That Rawls, the most significant late 20th-century thinker on theories of jus­ tice, supports equality of educational opportunity for those with similar talents and motivations, allowing education to be tailored by ability level to maximize each student’s potential, harkens back almost a century to the work of the early 20th­ century American philosopher of education, John Dewey. Dewey (1930/1984) articulated a complex and nuanced account of the purpose of education, discussing a number of coherent specific goals. He nevertheless crystallized his account as fol­ lows:“The ultimate aim of education is nothing other than the creation of human beings in the fullness of their capacities” (p. 289). In this statement, Dewey compel­ lingly and eloquently articulated our case. We should provide educational oppor­ tunities in such a way as to facilitate all students to realize their fullest potential. Gifted students have unique potential, unique talents, abilities, and motivations, and therefore, unique educational needs. Our system of education must be committed to supporting these unique needs.A just system of education should not limit edu­ cational opportunities to a certain threshold or sacrifice the opportunity of some for the sake of others. When evaluating inclusive education, then, our question is simply this: Does it help gifted students?

182 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

Research on inclusion of gifted students Inclusion of students with a range of abilities and performance is commonplace in schools in the United States and many other countries. However, educators and policy makers often underestimate the width of this range. For example, Firmender, Reis, and Sweeny (2013) studied student reading skills across 5 diverse elementary schools and found evidence of over 9 grade levels of reading fluency and compre­ hension within third grade classrooms and proficiency in over 11 grade levels with fourth and fifth grade classrooms. Even within a very high poverty school in their sample, they found over five grade levels of reading achievement in fifth grade class­ rooms. Interestingly, the one urban magnet school in their sample, which focused on educating gifted learners, had considerable performance diversity, with 7.7 grade levels in fourth grade, 10.0 in fifth, and 10.9 in sixth. Peters, Rambo-Hernandez, Makel, Matthews, and Plucker (2017) took a different approach to this topic, exam­ ining a number of state- and national-level assessment data sets to determine the proportion of students who begin each school year having already provided evi­ dence on previous years’ assessments that they had mastered the standards for the next highest grade. This approach uses a conservative definition of above-grade­ level achievement. For example, fourth graders would be considered above grade level in math if they had demonstrated on an adaptive test at the end of third grade that they were working at the fifth grade level. Peters et al. (2017) found that mil­ lions of American students in grades 3–8 started each school year already having mastered the content of their assigned grade. Therefore, if advanced students are going to be taught primarily in the regu­ lar classroom, special attention must be paid to assessing their level of proficiency and providing curricular content and instructional strategies that will extend their learning. For this reason, a major concern of advocates for advanced students is that the regular classroom environment provides little challenge for them. These students may have already mastered the contents or skills being taught, or they may be able to learn the material at a much faster-than-average pace. Indeed, determin­ ing whether gifted students encountered sufficient curricular and instructional dif­ ferentiation when taught in the regular classroom was a major, initial focus on the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRCG/T).That research strongly suggested that gifted students were insufficiently challenged in inclusive, heterogeneously grouped settings (Archambault et al., 1993; Moon, Callahan,Tom­ linson, & Miller, 2002; Reis et al., 2004;Westberg et al., 1993;Westberg & Daoust, 2003). More to the point, a subsequent NRCG/T study found evidence that teach­ ers who are differentiating tend to focus on below-grade-level students and believe that gifted students will learn adequately without such differentiation (Brighton, Hertberg, Callahan, Tomlinson, & Moon, 2005; see also Latz, Speirs, Adams, & Pierce, 2009; Moon, Brighton, & Callahan, 2003). Given that differentiation within the regular classroom is one of the most common forms of gifted education pro­ gramming (NAGC, 2015), this research seriously calls into question the effective­ ness of inclusion as commonly applied to the education of gifted students.

Inclusion of gifted students

183

Additionally, given that differentiation in inclusive, heterogeneously grouped classrooms is the norm—and has been for some time, especially for low-income students—the lack of convincing evidence of advanced achievement is concerning. For example, Plucker (2015) has noted that American students perform at advanced levels far less often than their peers in economically competitive countries, a trend that has existed since the start of the major international assessment programs. One might ask how or why we would expect otherwise if our most advanced students do not study content or processes that would advance their learning to the highest levels. Several reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the available research. First, the majority of gifted students likely received most of their education across the majority of content areas in inclusive settings. Second, even when teachers are actively differentiating, they focus primarily on struggling students.Third, the lack of challenge for gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms has a negative effect on their learning and development. Fourth, the primary service delivery option for inclusive education for the gifted—curricular and instructional differentiation—is not associated with convincing evidence of effectiveness. Of course, this body of research does not prove that inclusion for gifted students cannot be effective, but it offers a cautionary note about current inclusion efforts thus far.

Conditions for successful inclusion of gifted students We have outlined disparities between the arguments for inclusion and the evidence that implementation of the practice has not resulted in the desired outcomes. How­ ever, the rationales for a scenario in which inclusion would be the most favorable environment for gifted students’ learning compel consideration of the factors that likely would lead to greater success. The literature points to several strategies that may increase the odds of gifted students receiving adequate educational experiences in inclusive classrooms: moving from proficiency-based accountability to growthbased accountability, improvements in pre-service and in-service teacher educa­ tion, administrative commitments, consistent use of ability and cluster grouping, and widespread availability of certain types of high-quality curriculum and other classroom strategies.These suggestions are made with the caveat that the results of a differentiated program can only be seen over several years, with the initial stages being focused on overcoming teacher resistance and with subsequent sustained effort to reward practices that provide high-quality curriculum and instruction to gifted learners in the classroom.

K-12 accountability systems As most state K-12 accountability systems currently stand, schools and districts get little if any credit for promoting academic excellence. Several organizations have monitored and analyzed the state accountability plans required under Every Student Succeeds Act, (ESSA; e.g., Education Week, 2018). The Fordham Institute

184 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

analyzed the plans to determine the extent to which they address the growth of all students, not just those students close to the proficiency standard for each grade level. The Fordham team rated 23 of the state plans as being strong regarding a focus on growth of all students, 14 with a medium rating, and 14 weak state plans in this regard (Wright & Petrilli, 2017). Although the authors felt the accountabil­ ity systems were a “huge improvement” on those systems developed under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), many state plans did not include specific measures of advanced achievement in their ESSA plans, such as identifying gifted students as a distinct subgroup for accountability purposes. For better or worse, these systems influence priorities within districts and schools (e.g., Jennings, 2012), and the gen­ eral lack of attention to advanced achievement lowers the stakes further for educa­ tors who have no desire to support gifted students in their classrooms and schools.

Teacher preparation and professional development Regarding teacher preparation, very few states require any coverage in preservice programs regarding the educational needs of advanced students (Plucker, Glynn, Healey, & Dettmer, 2018), despite the presence of federal laws strongly encourag­ ing states to do so.4 Archambault et al. (1993) found in their study of almost 4,000 third- and fourth-grade teachers that 61% reported receiving no professional train­ ing in gifted education. Although that seminal study is now a generation old, the general lack of differentiation for gifted students suggests little progress is being made in educator preparation. It is unfathomable that a teacher would enter the classroom without any expo­ sure to meeting the needs of students with learning or other disabilities, yet we send teachers out into the field each year with little or no knowledge of how to work with advanced students.This is especially problematic when teachers are working with twice-exceptional, low-income, and racially diverse students who may not fit the teachers’ archetypes of a “talented student.” At the very least, all preservice teachers should be familiar with the needs of advanced students, including strategies for meeting their intellectual, interpersonal, and intrapersonal needs in the regular classroom (see Laine & Tirri, 2016). The National Association for Gifted Children (2014) has identified key teacher competencies for working with advanced students, and these standards can serve as a template for pre-service teacher preparation efforts. The competencies include knowledge and understanding of how gifted students differ cognitively and in level of achievement from their peers; the ability to create and interpret pre-assessment and formative assessments; the ability to identify, modify, and/or create appropriate differ­ entiated curricula; management strategies for implementation of multiple lessons in a classroom at one time; skill in identifying and securing multiple resources for instruc­ tion; advanced content knowledge; and a broad repertoire of instructional strategies. Of course, given that differentiation is a complex teaching skill, even compre­ hensive coverage of advanced teaching strategies in pre-service programs will be insufficient for meeting the needs of gifted students. Fortunately, several studies

Inclusion of gifted students

185

provide evidence that educators who participate in gifted education professional development programs have demonstrated increases in positive attitudes, percep­ tions, and improved confidence in their ability to meet the needs of gifted and talented students, in contrast to those who have not engaged in any training in this area (Bangel, Moon, & Capobianco, 2010; Lassig, 2009; Plunkett, 2000). Lewis and Milton (2005), Taylor and Milton (2006), and Tomlinson (2005) found that staff development in the area of gifted education also reinforces positive beliefs, attitudes toward, and perceptions of gifted and talented education, while ensuring the abil­ ity to identify these students and differentiate their learning appropriately across a diverse range of domains. The critical elements of in-service professional development include general, traditional provision of sound knowledge and understanding, mentoring, and intensive time allocated to planning under the tutelage of knowledgeable experts in inclusion and differentiation (McAdamis, 2001). Although McAdamis found teachers to be initially resistant to change, strategies such as peer coaching, action research, study groups, and workshops offering ongoing support and feedback eventually convinced teachers of the benefits of differentiation.These teachers were then willing to try other differentiated lessons in subsequent years. The topical elements of that staff development should include characteristics of gifted students, appropriate use of pre-assessment and formative assessment, and differentiation of curriculum and instruction according to student ability and achievement levels.The need for an emphasis on advanced content as well as varied instructional strategies was evident in a study by Blozowich (2001), who found teachers learned to use a variety of techniques but continued to prepare lessons as they would for a tracked classroom. Blozowich concluded that teachers imple­ menting differentiated instruction require continuous and consistent professional development, coupled with intensive dialogue and consultation about how these techniques are being implemented in the classroom.

Administrator and district-level support McAdamis (2001) found that transitioning to an effective inclusive classroom for gifted students required a concerted response from all stakeholders, including school principals, teachers, district trainers, and school authorities. Among the attributes and behaviors of a building administrator who facilitates high-quality inclusion classrooms for gifted learners would be: 1 2 3

A willingness to implement the programming strategy of cluster grouping (Gentry, 2018) A willingness and the ability to choose teachers with skill and will to differenti­ ate in the inclusive classroom (including willingness to take risks) The skill to schedule time and allocate resources that allow for provision of adequate planning time and personnel support (coaches and resource staff) for differentiation. Tomlinson et al. (1995) identified one of the barriers to

186 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

4

5

differentiation as inadequate time to prepare differentiated lessons, and Robison (2004) found time and support to be key elements of successful differentiation. A positive and encouraging stance that allows for mistakes and also provides support for teachers who endeavor to make significant changes in classroom environment, curriculum, and instruction. Tomlinson et al. (1995) found fear of loss of control to be an inhibitor of implementation of differentiated lessons. Provision of necessary resources and tools for differentiation within general edu­ cation classrooms (Bain, Bliss, Choate, & Brown, 2007;Tomlinson et al., 1994).

For realization of successful inclusion for advanced students, school district and building-level administrators must provide four key elements. The first of these is high-quality professional development as noted earlier. Second is a set of policies that give permission to deviate from pacing guides or other inhibitors of teacher flexibility to differentiate for gifted students or high-ability learners—particularly as these relate to focus on test preparation and scores (Tomlinson, 1995). These policies should extend to incorporation of differentiation of instruction as a key element in teacher evaluation. The third foundational feature is preparation of school-level administrators in (a) choosing teachers who either have the capacity to differentiate the curriculum and instruction in the classroom or have demonstrated the capacity and willingness to learn those skills, (b) strategies for effective clustering, and (c) preparation for evalu­ ating and providing feedback to teachers for high-quality differentiation. Finally, the school district staff should develop a clear plan for communication with parents that delineates the goals and processes of inclusion that will support gifted learners while providing parents of all students assurances of high-quality instruction.

Grouping by ability Another helpful strategy is the use of some form of ability grouping, specifically to help teachers narrow the range of abilities and performance levels they encounter in the classroom. Putting aside the stark differences between tracking and flexible ability grouping,5 the research on ability grouping is more positive than many crit­ ics would have educators believe. For example, in the most exhaustive meta-analysis to date, Steenbergen-Hu, Makel, and Olszewski-Kubilius (2016) found evidence that within-class grouping, often referred to as cluster grouping, had significant, positive effects on student achievement for all ability levels. This work runs parallel to other major, meta-analytic studies, including those by Slavin (1987, 1990) and Kulik and Kulik (1982, 1992). These studies generally find small or negligible effects for ability grouping of students at all levels of ability without curricular or instructional modification. Slavin (1990), echoing observa­ tions by Kulik and Kulik (1992), Plucker, Makel, and Rapp (2008), and others, goes so far as to conclude: The lesson to be drawn from research on ability grouping may be that unless teaching methods are systematically changed, school organization has little

Inclusion of gifted students

187

impact on student achievement. . . . if teachers continue to use some form of lecture/discussion/seatwork/quiz, then it may matter very little in the aggre­ gate which . . . students the teachers are facing. (pp. 491–492) In other words, for ability grouping to work for any students, appropriate instructional and curricular differentiation must occur across the ability levels. For this reason, the research suggests that decisions to implement ability group­ ing may be negative or positive for high-ability students, depending on how the grouping is implemented. This leads to a complex relationship between ability grouping and differentiation: Ability grouping of and by itself probably has little impact on student achievement; but without it, the curricular and instructional differentiation that may have that impact is much more difficult (see also Kauff­ man, 2011).

High-quality curriculum and other classroom strategies Fortunately, gifted education is rife with advice for developing interventions to be used with gifted students. Relevant strategies include the use of pre-assessments and formative assessments; focusing interventions on students’ zone of proximal devel­ opment; and the use of prescriptive, pre-differentiated curriculum.

Pre-assessment and formative assessment Fundamental to being successful in efforts to make inclusion an effective practice is the recognition by teachers of the fundamental cognitive and learning differ­ ences exhibited by gifted learners. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) note gifted learners are unlikely to receive the necessary services and supports for their academic success if teachers do not acknowledge the differences in how students learn. First, teachers must be aware of the general characteristics of gifted learners that differentiate them from other learners, including the differences in cognition and associated affective behaviors. Studies show that professional development can help teachers increase their understanding of gifted learners’ needs, particu­ larly for students who are less likely to be perceived as gifted (Megay-Nespoli, 2001; Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, & Dixon, 2007). Then teachers must be able to identify and effectively implement and interpret specific assessments that will provide them with information on the current levels of achievement of their gifted learners. Not only should teachers use pre-assessment to avoid teach­ ing gifted students the knowledge, understandings, and skills they have already mastered; they also should develop skills in assessing how quickly students are learning new content and skills so they are not required to engage in unnecessary repetition (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005; see, for example the work of Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998, on the effectiveness of curriculum compacting).

188 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

Tailoring curriculum to students’ zone of proximal development Not only should classrooms be characterized by careful assessment, the findings of that assessment should be reflected in the ways curricular decisions are made. Marsh (2012) found that educators often lack this capacity to use data and want or lack support to help move from knowledge of students’ status to planning for instruc­ tion. Fundamental to success of inclusion is modification of classroom practices to include curricular adjustments that are a match to students’ current levels of achievement and their capacity to learn across the dimensions of pace of learning and depth and complexity of learning (Kearney, 1996). Unfortunately, teachers too often gather assessment data but then fail to adjust curriculum according to the data collected (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005).The current focus on ensuring all students meet minimal standards too often leads to clinical and deficit approaches that focus on the things that students cannot do and, hence, leads to a ‘fix-it’ approach (Griffin, 2009) rather than an “enhancement” or “extension” approach. Responding to assessment of the zone of proximal development the gifted students in the classroom exhibit in the same way that we would consider that factor in all students is paramount. In general, teachers working with gifted students need to focus classroom lessons based on what those students can learn.As Siegle (2014) has noted, “Every student deserves to learn something new every day.”To accomplish that goal, classroom curriculum and instruction should be structured to allow for both acceleration of content learning and enrichment through increased depth and complexity of content and the use of instructional strategies that encourage inde­ pendent thinking and doing, among others.

Prescriptive curriculum These models can be characterized as descriptive frameworks for implementation of curriculum (in which teachers use a model as guide in developing daily les­ sons) or as prescriptive (in which teachers follow a pre-developed unit based on a framework or model’s guiding principles). Descriptive curriculum authors may provide examples based on their model, but pre-developed units are not a part of a descriptive framework; prescriptive curriculum always provides pre-developed units for instruction. Studies of descriptive curricular model implementation with gifted students provide limited evidence of effectiveness, generally concluding that such curricu­ lum did not bring about lasting change in teacher instruction or student achieve­ ment (e.g., Brighton et al., 2005). In contrast, data from several quasi-experimental and experimental studies support the use of prescriptive units (Feng, VanTasselBaska, Quek, Bai, & O’Neill, 2005; Gavin, Casa,Adelson, Carroll, & Sheffield, 2009; Tieso, 2005).The relative effectiveness of prescriptive curriculum (teachers teach­ ing according to specific unit frameworks with lesson plans and resources speci­ fied) has been supported in randomized control studies of the implementation of language arts units based on the CLEAR Curriculum framework (Callahan,Azano,

Inclusion of gifted students

189

Oh, & Hailey, 2012), units based the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Zhang, 2008), and mathematics units (Casa, Firmender, Gavin, & Carroll, 2017; Gavin et al., 2009;Wang, Firmender, Power, & Byrnes, 2016). A particular strength of prescriptive curriculum models is that they can be “pre­ differentiated,” greatly lowering the time and expertise needed by teachers to imple­ ment differentiation effectively. A number of recent studies of pre-differentiated curriculum have found evidence of successful instructional differentiation and positive student growth (Casa et al., 2017; McCoach, Gubbins, Foreman, Rubenstein, & Rambo-Hernandez, 2014; Rubenstein, Gilson, Bruce-Davis, & Gubbins, 2015). Interestingly, the results of the McCoach et al. (2014) study, in which a pre­ differentiated math curriculum was implemented in an inclusive setting, found the most positive benefits for high-achieving students in lower-achieving schools.This result, if replicated, could provide another strategy for shrinking excellence gaps in low achieving schools (Plucker & Peters, 2018).

Conclusion We are skeptical that inclusion in regular classroom contexts is beneficial for most gifted students.VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) cautionary note breathes fire, but appro­ priately so, when she observes that: Some have capitulated to the mantra of inclusion and placed gifted students in heterogeneous settings with the hollow promise of having all teachers dif­ ferentiate instruction, based on a workshop here and there. . . . Others have gone in the opposite direction toward more separate schools and classrooms to protect the integrity of a program for our best learners in schools that have run wild with mindless accountability and egalitarianism at the cost of being responsive to real individual differences. (p. 267) That said, the majority of high-ability students in the United States likely receive their education exclusively in this setting, and we see a path forward for attempting to make it work. A mix of flexible ability grouping and differentiation, along with vastly improved accountability systems, preservice teacher training, in-service pro­ fessional development, pre- and formative assessment, and prescriptive (and prefer­ ably pre-differentiated) curriculum are most likely to result in growth for gifted students in inclusive classrooms. Of course, all of this is facilitated when educators and students are supported by educational leaders who provide a school culture conducive to supporting the education of gifted students. However, an important caveat is that educators need to be flexible in how they define inclusion. For example, if a fourth grader ready for fifth grade math is allowed to take their math classes in the fifth grade, would that very mild form of single-subject acceleration be considered inclusion? From our perspective, it unquestionably would, but it would be naïve to assume this judgment in a day and

190 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

age when some districts are eliminating all advanced programming, even cluster grouping, in the name of “social justice.” Treating each student identically is, as noted above, the stuff of dystopian fiction and Harrison Bergeron. If within-class differentiation is too difficult or otherwise inconvenient, straightforward strategies that allow students to take classes with intellectual peers, if not chronological peers, should fall under the mantle of inclusive education.

Notes 1 Some scholars consider adequacy to be a form of equality while others consider it a distinct, competing concept. Both recent philosophical analysis and school funding litiga­ tion have served to diminish or collapse the distinction. 2 The veil of ignorance is a conceptual tool that figures prominently in the work of Rawls, but which has precursors going back to the 18th century.The basic idea is that we should make decisions about how to create a just society not knowing one’s ultimate position in society. In this context, we should decide about the fair distribution of educational opportunities not knowing our (or our children’s) academic potential. It seems reasonable in such a state we would all want a system that maximizes the potential of each student to the extent possible given available resources, which might mean we would spend resources differentially according to needs and efficiency. 3 For example, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) worked with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (CTY) and partner organizations in Greece to develop robust educational programs for gifted students with the explicit goal of address­ ing this precise issue. 4 Specifically, The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 and the Every Student Succeeds Act. E.g., Section 2101(d)(2)(J) of the ESSA Title II provisions state that each state plan shall include,“A description of how the State educational agency will improve the skills of teachers, principals, or other school leaders in order to enable them to identify stu­ dents with specific learning needs, particularly children with disabilities, English learners, students who are gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels, and provide instruction based on the needs of such students.” 5 Tracking involves placing students over the long term in ability groups that are difficult to leave; such tracking was used for decades to justify segregation of students by race and socioeconomic status, and as such, the use of the term to refer to contemporary ability grouping is not only incorrect but also emotionally charged. Ability grouping is a term used to represent a variety of different organizational strategies, such as between- or within-class groupings, with flexibility that allows for changes in instructional placement over time.

References Archambault, F. X., Jr.,Westberg, K. L., Brown, S.W., Hallmark, B.W., Zhang,W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103–119. Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Brown, K. S. (2007). Serving children who are gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 450–478. Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., & Capobianco, B. M. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 209−221. Benson, L. (2002). Serving gifted students through inclusion: A teacher’s perspective. Roeper Review, 24, 126–127.

Inclusion of gifted students

191

Bernal, E. M. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: Programming for gifted students beyond the era of inclusionism. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 183–191. Blozowich, D. G. (2001). Differentiated instruction in heterogeneously grouped sixth grade class­ rooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Immaculata College, Pennsylvania. Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C.,Tomlinson, C., & Moon,T. (2005). The feasibility of high end learning in academically diverse middle schools (Research Monograph 05210). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2011).The schoolwide cluster grouping model: Restructur­ ing gifted education services for the 21st century. Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 35–46. Callahan, C. M., Azano, A., Oh, S., & Hailey, E. (2012, April). What works in gifted education: Integrated language arts curricular models for gifted students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Casa,T. M., Firmender, J. M., Gavin, M. K., & Carroll, S. R. (2017). Kindergarteners’ achieve­ ment on geometry and measurement units that incorporate a gifted education approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 52–72. doi:10.1177/0016986216671806 Dewey, J. (1930/1984). Philosophy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925–1953: Volume 5, 1929–1930. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Education Week. (2018). Approved ESSA plans: Explainer and key takeaways from each state. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/ key-takeaways-state-essa-plans.html Feng, A.,VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., Bai,W., & O’Neill, B. (2005). A longitudinal assess­ ment of gifted students’ learning using the integrated curriculum model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78–83. doi:10.1080/02783190509554294 Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms:The need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 3–14. Gavin, M. K., Casa,T. M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., & Sheffield, L. J. (2009).The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188–202. doi:10.1177/0016986209334964 Gentry, M. (2014). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation (2nd ed.).Waco,TX: Prufrock Press. Gentry, M. (2018). Cluster grouping. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 213–224). New York, NY: Routledge. Griffin, P. (2009). Teachers’ use of assessment data. In C. M. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century: Connecting theory and practice (pp. 183–208). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9964-9_10 Jennings, J. (2012).The effects of accountability system design on teachers’ use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 110304. Kauffman, J. M. (2011). Toward a science of education: The battle between rogue and real science. Verona, WI:Attainment. Kearney, K. (1996). Highly gifted children in full inclusion classrooms. Highly Gifted Children, 12(4), 1–5. Kulik, C-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school stu­ dents: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415–428. doi:10.3102/00028312019003415

192 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77. doi:10.1177/001698629203600204 Laine, S., & Tirri, K. (2016). How Finnish elementary school teachers meet the needs of their gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 149–164. Lassig, C. (2009).Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted:The importance of professional devel­ opment and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32−42. Latz, A., Speirs, N. K., Adams, C., & Pierce, R. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27–39. Lewis, E., & Milton, M. (2005). Attitudes of teachers before and after professional develop­ ment. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 14(1), 5−14. Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48. Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J.A., & McBee, M.T. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster group­ ing and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achieve­ ment growth. High Ability Studies, 24, 81–97. McAdamis, S. (2001). Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of student needs. Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 1–5. McCoach, D. B., Gubbins, E. J., Foreman, J., Rubenstein, L. D., & Rambo-Hernandez, K. E. (2014). Evaluating the efficacy of using predifferentiated and enriched mathematics curricula for grade 3 students: A multisite cluster-randomized trial. Gifted Child Quar­ terly, 58(4), 272–286. Megay-Nespoli, K. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding instruction of aca­ demically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23(3), 178–182. doi:10.1080/02783190109554092 Moon,T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe in gifted education? Roeper Review, 25, 49–61. Moon,T. R., Callahan, C. M.,Tomlinson, C.A., & Miller, E. M. (2002). Middle school classrooms: Teachers’ reported practices and student perceptions. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. National Association for Gifted Children. (2014, September). Knowledge and skill standards in gifted education for all teachers. Retrieved from www.nagc.org/resources-publications/ resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/knowledge-and National Association for Gifted Children and The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015, November). 2014–2015 state of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC:Authors. Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479–499. doi:10.4219/ jeg-2007-503 Park,V., & Datnow, A. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123, 281–306. Peters, S. J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M. C., Matthews, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers of students start the school year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 229–238. Plucker, J. A. (2015, August). Advanced academic performance: Exploring country-level differences in the pursuit of educational excellence (Policy Brief 7). Amsterdam,The Netherlands: Interna­ tional Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from www. iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Briefs/IEA_policy_brief_Aug2015.pdf Plucker, J. A., Glynn, J., Healey, G., & Dettmer, A. (2018). Equal talents, unequal opportunities: A report card on state support for academically talented low-income students (2nd ed.). Lans­ downe,VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved from www.excellencegap.org/

Inclusion of gifted students

193

Plucker, J. A., Makel, M. C., & Rapp, K. E. (2008). The impact of charter schools on pro­ moting high levels of mathematics achievement. Journal of School Choice, 1(4), 63–76. doi:10.1300/15582150802098738 Plucker, J.A., & Peters, S. J. (2018). Closing poverty-based excellence gaps: Conceptual, meas­ urement, and educational issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 56–67. Plunkett, M. (2000). Education teachers to meet the needs of gifted students: An option or a necessity? TalentEd, 9–16. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness:A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C., Schreiber, F. J., Richards, S., Jacobs, J. K., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few oppor­ tunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309–338. Reis, S. M.,Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compact­ ing and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123–129. Robison, E. M. (2004). Teacher decision-making in utilizing differentiated instruction (Unpublished PhD thesis). Marywood University. Rubenstein, L. D., Gilson, C. M., Bruce-Davis, M. N., & Gubbins, E. J. (2015).Teachers’ reac­ tions to pre-differentiated and enriched mathematics curricula. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 141–168. Siegle, D. (2014, June 21). The gifted students’ bill of rights. Retrieved from www.facebook. com/notes/josh-shaine/the-gifted-students-bill-of-rights/10152186524642844 Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336. doi:10.3102/ 00346543057003293 Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499. doi:10.3102/ 00346543060003471 Smith, C. M. (Ed.). (2006). Including the gifted and talented: Making inclusion work for more gifted and able learners. New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016).What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K—12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 486–506. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00095.x Taylor, T., & Milton, M. (2006). Preparation for teaching gifted students: An investiga­ tion into university courses in Australia. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 15(1), 25–31. Tieso,C.(2005).The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60–89. doi:10.1177/016235320502900104 Tomlinson, C.A. (2005).Travelling the road to differentiation in staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 8−12. Tomlinson, C. A. (2015). Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms. Soci­ ety, 52, 203–209. Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Tomchin, E. M., Landrum, M., Imbeau, M., . . . Eiss, N. (1995). Preservice teacher preparation in meeting the needs of gifted and other academically diverse students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. University of Connecticut.

194 Carolyn M. Callahan et al.

Tomlinson, C. A., Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Adams, C. M., Pizzat-Tinnin, P., Cun­ ningham, C. M., . . . Landrum, M. (1994). Practices of preservice teachers related to gifted and other academically diverse learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 106–114. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). Myth 12: Gifted programs should stick out like a sore thumb. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 266–268. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. doi:10.1207/ s15430421tip4403_5 Vogl, K., & Preckel, F. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 51–68. Wang,A. H., Firmender, J. M., Power, J. R., & Byrnes, J. P. (2016). Understanding the program effectiveness of early mathematics interventions for prekindergarten and kindergarten environments:A meta-analytic review. Early Education and Development, 27(5), 692–713. Westberg, K. L., Archambault Jr, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 120–146. Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, 3(8). Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/fall032/#. Wright, B. L., & Petrilli, M. J. (2017). Rating the ratings:An analysis of the 51 ESSA accountabil­ ity plans.Washington, DC: Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2. amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/11.15%20-%20Rating%20the%20Ratings%20-%20 An%20Analysis%20of%20the%2051%20ESSA%20Accountability%20Plans.pdf

10

INCLUSION, GOVERNMENTS, AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

The focus of this book is on educational inclusion, and the chapters address many issues on this topic. In this chapter, we examine inclusion in governmental and non­ governmental organizations (NGOs).We begin with a definition of the terms that underlie educational inclusion. We next report on educational inclusion required by the US government and called for by various NGOs throughout the country. We end by comparing the versions of educational inclusion as espoused by these organizations to the requirements of federal law in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The roots of educational inclusion Least restrictive environment (LRE), inclusion, and mainstreaming are often used inter­ changeably; however, these concepts are not synonymous. Moreover, neither the IDEA not the regulations implementing the law use the terms mainstreaming or inclusion. The term LRE refers to the IDEA’s legal mandate requiring public school districts to educate students with disabilities alongside students without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Mainstreaming is a somewhat dated term used to refer to the practice of educating students with disabilities in regular classrooms with students without disabilities.The term mainstreaming was used by courts in a number of important cases. However, inclusion is more of a general philosophical stance, which posits that persons with disabilities should be included in all aspects of society. When applied to education, inclusion is a practice in which students with disabilities spend the majority or all of their time in the general educational environment. Full inclusion is the term associated with full-time placement in the general education classroom. Least restrictive environment, however, is not a par­ ticular setting and does not mandate either inclusion or mainstreaming (Bateman & Linden, 2012).

196 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

In 1974, Senator Robert Stafford, an original co-sponsor of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), speaking on the US Senate floor, addressed the importance of educating students with disabilities in least restrictive settings: We are concerned that children with handicapping conditions be educated in the most normal possible and least restrictive setting, for how else will they adapt to the world beyond the educational environment, and how else will the nonhandicapped adapt to them? (Stafford, 1974, Congressional Record) We next review educational inclusion in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the US government.

Government Any discussion relating to the government in the United States is complicated by the broad and all-encompassing nature of government and the role it plays in education, which exists both on the state and federal levels.The US govern­ ment is a federal system; that is, the government is composed of a union of states joined under a central federal government. The relationship of the states to the federal government is set forth in the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment, which limits excessive concentration of power in the national government while simultaneously limiting full dispersal of power to the states. In our federalist system, the national government has specific powers granted to it in the Constitution.Those powers not granted to the national government are the province of the states. The purpose of this chapter is to examine edu­ cational inclusion in government and nongovernmental organizations, but we confine out discussion to the federal government. We do this because the basis of educational inclusion of students with disabilities begins, in a legal sense, with the passage of the EAHCA of 1975 and the requirement that students with dis­ abilities be educated in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate. (For an excellent discussion of inclusion in special education, and its development in the law, readers are referred to Crockett’s Chapter 2 in this volume). Another complicating factor in any discussion of the role of government in edu­ cational inclusion is the many functions of the government, which includes writ­ ing, enforcing, and interpreting laws.These tasks are the province of the legislative branch (i.e., writing laws), the executive branch (i.e., implementing and enforcing laws), and the judicial branch (i.e., interpreting laws and resolving cases and contro­ versies). Crockett (2020) has done a masterful job of discussing both the develop­ ment of federal special education law and subsequent interpretations of the LRE mandate by the courts.Therefore, we only briefly address educational inclusion of the legislative and judicial branches of the government and more thoroughly exam­ ine educational inclusion from the executive branch.

Inclusion, governments, and NGOs

197

The legislative branch of government and educational inclusion The legislative branch of the federal government, consisting of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, are responsible for making federal laws. We next briefly examine the beginning of educational inclusion in the passage of the EAHCA of 1975. In 1969, Bengt Nirje wrote that persons with disabilities “should have everyday lives which are as close as possible to the norms and patterns of the mainstream of society” (Nirje, 1969, p. 19). This early expression of the notion of including persons with disabilities in the mainstream of life was applied to special educa­ tion by two pioneers in the field: Drs. Maynard Reynolds and Evelyn Deno, who systematically applied this principle to special education placement in the 1960s and 1970s. In two classic articles published in Exceptional Children, Reynolds (1962) and Deno (1970), both at the University of Minnesota, proposed hierarchies of special education service placement that varied in the amount of segregation from the general education setting. Both pioneers recognized the importance of educating students with disabilities (SWD) in environments as close to the general educa­ tion setting as appropriate. Reynold’s and Deno’s hierarchical models were to be forerunners of LRE principal of the EAHCA of 1975. The EAHCA, which was renamed the IDEA in 1990, required the following: [T]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate school­ ing, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educa­ tional environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1412) In 2006, the US Department of Education defined the term regular educational envi­ ronment to include regular education classrooms and other school settings such as lunchrooms and playgrounds in which students without disabilities participate (Federal Register, 46,585, 2006). According to Turnbull, Stowe, and Huerta (2007), the law’s definition of LRE is a rebuttable presumption.That is, the law favors the education of SWD in the gen­ eral education environment. If a student cannot receive an education in that setting with the use of supplementary aids and services, however, that presumption may be rebutted by removing SWD to more restrictive but more appropriate settings. The IDEA also requires school districts have a continuum of alternative placements available, which vary in degree of restrictiveness, to ensure SWD receive an appro­ priate education. Regulations to the IDEA require:

198 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

1

2

Each [school district] shall ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. The continuum required must: (a) Include the alternative placements (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions) (b) Make provision for supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction) to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.551).

The purpose of the continuum of alternative placements (CAP) was to allow school personnel, in consultation with a student’s parents, to choose from a num­ ber of options in determining the placement that was most appropriate for the student. Integral to the CAP was the notion that for some students a setting that is more restrictive than the general education setting may be needed to provide an appropriate education for an individual. In such a situation, that setting, no mat­ ter how far removed from the general education setting, may be the LRE for that individual. Continuing with Senator Stafford (1978), he stated that Congress included the LRE principle in the law to affirm the desirability of educating students with dis­ abilities in the general classroom but also in recognition of the fact that for some students an education in the general education classroom would not be appropri­ ate. For these students, placements in more restrictive settings would be required to provide an appropriate education.According to Stafford: Some call (LRE) “mainstreaming” but that is not, in my view, a good expres­ sion because it implies that all handicapped children must be educated in the regular classroom. That is not at all what we in the Congress sought or intended. . . .We recognized, however, that there are many instances when it would be harmful to a handicapped child to force him or her into a regular classroom situation. This is a decision which should be reached during the construction of the individualized education plan. (Stafford, 1978, p. 76) This statement by Senator Stafford is an apt summation of the IDEA’s principle of LRE. In the over 40 years since the passage of the EAHCA, the LRE and CAP requirements of the law and implementing regulations have not changed. The presumption of educating SWD in settings alongside students without disabilities is an important principle of the IDEA. In fact, the IDEA regula­ tions requires school district officials ensure SWD not be removed from educa­ tion in age-appropriate general education classrooms solely because of needed

Inclusion, governments, and NGOs

199

modifications in the general education curriculum (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.116[e]).Thus, if accommodations, modifications, and supplementary aids and services can result in a student with disabilities receiving an appropriate education in less restrictive settings, it is incumbent on school district personnel to honor this presumptive right.When a student is moved to a more restrictive setting, the IDEA compels IEP teams to justify situations in which students are placed in such settings. In such cases, the IEP of a student must include “an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in (extracurricular and nonacademic) activities” (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(iv)).

The executive branch of government and educational inclusion The executive branch is charged with administering, managing, and enforcing fed­ eral laws and programs the implementation and enforcement of all the laws passed by the legislative branch of the federal government.The US Department of Edu­ cation (USDOE) is the agency within the executive branch that is responsible for overseeing federal educational issues and law. Additionally, the Department prom­ ulgates the regulations to the laws developed by the legislative branch of govern­ ment. Regulations, which have the force of law, add detail to the law but do not go beyond the law. The USDOE was created a few years after the passage of the EAHCA. The Department, which is a cabinet-level position, became operational in 1980 when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. A partial list of offices within the US Department of Education are depicted in Figure 10.1. The Office in the Department that is involved in issues of educational inclusion is the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).A division within OSERS is the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

US Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Office of Civil Rights

Office of Special Education Programs

FIGURE 10.1

Partial organizational chart of US Department of Education

200 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

Included in the duties of OSERS and OSEP are the issuance of written guidance on the laws the agencies are responsible for implementing. Often this guidance comes in the form of memoranda, which provide explanations on top­ ics of concerns and letters written in response to questions raised by educators, parents, representative of advocacy organizations, and state educational agency officials. They also may be written in response to concerns department officials have with the implementation of laws. The purpose of such policy guidance is to interpret the law; policy documents do not have the force of law, nor can they go beyond the law. Nonetheless, such policy guidance statements are important to the special education community, because when USDOE officials issue policy guidance it comes from the officials who also write regulations, which do have the force of law. Both OSERS and OSEP have issued policy memoranda and letters providing guidance on the issue of LRE and the continuum of placements.Table 10.1 depicts policy letters issued by OSERS and OSEP, which emphasized the nature of the LRE requirement of the IDEA and how placement must be addressed by IEP teams. These policy letters have continued to stress the importance of individual­ ized decision making and the CAP when making LRE decisions. OSEP recently issued a question and answer document on the US Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017). One of the questions in the document concerned how the Supreme Court’s ruling would affect placement decisions.The following answer by OSEP officials was an apt sum­ mation of the USDOE’s position on LRE: Consistent with the decision in Endrew F., the Department continues to recognize that it is essential to make individualized determinations about what constitutes appropriate instruction and services for each child with a disability and the placement in which that instruction and those services can be provided for the child.There is no ‘one-size-fits all’ approach to educating children with disabilities. Rather, placement decisions must be individualized and made consistent with a child’s IEP. (US Department of Education, 2017, question 17) The USDOE also assumes a crucial role in identifying, implementing, evaluat­ ing, and disseminating information about effective practices in educating SWD by funding discretionary and formula grants.The discretionary grants are awarded through a competitive process in which the department selects and funds institu­ tions of higher education and other non-profit organizations to support research, demonstrations, technology, technical assistance, and personnel preparation. OSEP also funds over 50 technical assistance centers that disseminate information and provide assistance to families, school districts, and states.1 We provide the mission statements and general information about some of the centers that have positions on educational inclusion in Table 10.2.

What is the meaning of mainstreaming under the EAHCA (IDEA)?

Does the LRE requirement mean that must maximize the opportunities for children with disabilities to interact with nondisabled children? Do the guidelines on LRE issued by OSERS define the regular classroom as the appropriate location of services in all cases? How and when should the LRE requirement be applied in developing a FAPE for a student with disabilities? Does OSERS support the concept of regular class placement for all children with disabilities, sometimes known as full inclusion?

Letter to Mordick (OSEP, 1979)

Letter to Earnest (OSERS, 1986)

Letter to Frost (OSERS, 1991)

Letter to Richards (OSERS, 1987)

Letter to Holmes (OSERS, 1987)

Question

Ruling

TABLE 10.1 Policy Letters Issued by OSERS and OSEP

(Continued)

Determination of the LRE appropriate for a student is a placement decision, placement decisions must be based on an IEP, a determination of LRE only can be made after an IEP is developed. OSERS supports the goal of integrating children with disabilities in schools alongside their nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate. However, Part B does not specifically mention the concept of “full inclusion” and in fact requires placement decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. Local educational agencies, therefore, need to maintain a continuum of alternative placements in order to be properly prepared to address the individual needs of all children with disabilities.

Not all children with disabilities must be educated in the regular classroom; in some cases, separate have been recognized as the least restrictive. Inherent in a FAPE is a continuum of services.

The intent of the LRE requirement is that children with disabilities will benefit from education in regular classes if it is the best interest of the child and the child can participate. The LRE requirement that, based on the individual needs of the child, LEAs must maximize opportunities for a child with disabilities to interact with nondisabled children.

Answer

Answer A child with a disability need not fail in the regular education environment before a local educational agency can consider placement in a more restrictive setting. The statutory provision for expresses a preference, not a mandate, for educating disabled students with disabilities in regular classes with supplementary aids and services. Under the IDEA, the overriding rule in placement is that each student’s placement is determined on an individual basis in light of the student’s individual abilities and needs.The IEP forms the basis for the placement decision. Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services (emphasis by OSEP). Moreover, placement decisions for children with disabilities must be made on an individual basis, based on the unique needs of each child, by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options. A child’s placement must be determined on an individual, case-by-case basis, depending on each child’s unique needs and circumstances, made at least annually, based on the child’s IEP, and be as close as possible to the child’s home. Recognizing that there is no “one size fits all” approach and that placements in regular classes may not be the least restrictive placement for every child with a disability, the IDEA regulations specify that each public agency is to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available Placements that are determined based solely on the category of a child’s disability are not consistent with the IDEA’s regulations.A child may be placed in a special purpose school for students with autism only if the placement team determines that placement to be necessary to meet the individual needs of that child and that the child cannot be educated satisfactorily in a less restrictive setting, even with the use of appropriate supplementary aids and services.

Question

Must a child first fail in the regular education environment before a local educational agency can consider placing the student in a more restrictive placement? Would full inclusion for all and/or most students within a public school district, regardless of their needs, etc., be a violation of the LRE regulation? Are maintaining segregated schools for students with autism in every county in a state a violation of the IDEA?

Ruling

Letter to Estavan (OSEP, 1997) Letter to Anonymous (OSEP, 2009) Letter to Autin (OSERS, 2011)

TABLE 10.1 (Continued)

The Mission of the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) is to build the capacity of state and local education agencies, universities, practitioners, and other stakeholders to support implementation of intensive intervention in literacy, mathematics, and behavior for students with severe and persistent learning and/or behavioral needs, often in the context of their Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) or special education services. NCII’s approach to intensive intervention is data-based individualization (DBI), a researchbased process that integrates the systematic use of assessment data, validated interventions, and intensification strategies. SWIFT Education Center provides executive leadership coaching, professional learning, and differentiated technical assistance (TA) to education entities through contractual agreements.These services are based on a framework for inclusive school-wide transformation in which Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) is the mechanism that drives improved student outcomes. The purpose of the Center is to improve the capacity of SEAs, LEAs, and schools to establish, scale-up, and sustain the PBIS framework to (a) scale up tier 2 and 3 systems to improve outcomes for students with or at-risk for disabilities, (b) enhance school climate and school safety, and (c) improve conditions for learning to promote the well-being of all students.

National Center on Intensive Intervention (intensiveintervention.org)

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (pbis.org)

SWIFT Education Center (swiftschools.org)

Mission

Center

TABLE 10.2 Mission Statements and General Information about Some of the OSEP-Funded Centers

The PBIS center does not have a specific policy statement on the inclusion of students with disabilities. It has schoolwide behavior strategies that will benefit all students and in dependent on school personnel developing a school-wide system that assesses and intervenes with the individual needs of students.

SWIFT schools makes it very clear, throughout their website and the programs and technical assistance they provide, that they are in support of all students being included in the general education classroom.This is the basis of their programs, their literature, and the assistance to the states SWIFT provides.

NCII does not have a specific policy or statement on inclusion. It has a list of policies and procedures that support all students, and some of these students will be eligible for special education and receive supports in the general education setting. Because NCII’s approach to intensive intervention is data-based and addresses the unique academic and behavioral needs, it would seem to be in sync with the US Department of Education’s position on LRE and individualization.

Position on Inclusion

204 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

The judicial branch of government and educational inclusion The judicial branch of the federal government is comprised of courts that interpret the laws written by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the nation. Ranked immediately below the SCOTUS in scope and importance of its ruling are the various circuit courts in the US Courts of Appeals. Special education has been a highly litigated area, with the LRE mandate proving to be among the most litigated areas in special education. Martin (2013) asserted that the concept of LRE grew out of court rulings in the early 1970s regarding the education of SWD. In these court cases, both school district personnel and parents have expressed dissatisfaction with placements for SWD because the settings were believed to have failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) or did not provide an education in the LRE (Huefner & Herr, 2012). Huefner and Herr (2012) asserted that LRE legal controversies have occurred when parents requested less restrictive placements (e.g., the general classroom) and when parents have requested more restrictive placements (e.g., separate schools).These disputes have led to a consid­ erable number of cases regarding the LRE mandate of the IDEA, some of which have reached the US Courts of Appeals.The SCOTUS has thus far has not heard an LRE case (although the High Court has declined to hear a number of LRE cases), and therefore the decisions at the appellate levels are the highest authority available.Table 10.3 depicts significant LRE cases that have been heard at the appel­ late level.These rulings are extremely important, especially in the jurisdictions they cover (see Table 10.3 for jurisdictions of the appellate courts). For an examination of this litigation, see Chapter 2 in this volume; however, we briefly review the basic premises of this litigation here. The courts have essentially held that a key to making educational placements in the LRE is individualization.That is, the courts addressed this question:Was the setting in which a student will be educated decided on a case-by-case basis (i.e., the student’s individualized needs were the primary factors in determining the setting)? If a student’s placement team or school district makes a decision as to a student’s placement in advance of a placement team meeting with the student’s parents, then a possible violation of the IDEA called predetermination has occurred.Thus, when making LRE decisions, school district personnel must avoid predetermination. According to Slater (2010), allegations of predetermination have become almost boilerplate in special education disputes, and if a student’s parents can demonstrate they were excluded from the placement process, they may be able to obtain relief for a placement-related IDEA violation. Additional factors that should be taken into account when determining the LRE for a student include (a) the academic benefits of the general education set­ ting, (b) the nonacademic benefits (e.g., socialization) of the general education set­ ting, and (c) any possible harmful effects that the student may have on the teacher and the students without disabilities. Clearly, these factors are extremely important;

2nd CT, NY,VT 3rd DE, NJ, PA,Virgin Islands 5th LA, MS,TX 10th CO, KS, OK, NM, UT,WY 11th AL, FL, GA

Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (5th Cir., 1989)

Sacramento School District v. Rachel H. (9th Cir., 1994)

9th AL,AZ, CA, Guam, HI, ID, MT, Northern Mariana Islands, NV, OR,WA

4th MD, NC, SC,VA,WV

6th KY, OH, MI,TN 8th AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD

Roncker v.Walter, (6th Cir., 1983)

DeVries v. Fairfax County (4th Cir., 1989).

Circuits and Jurisdictions

Case

TABLE 10.3 Important LRE Cases in the US Courts of Appeals

1. The educational benefits of the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services as compared with the educational benefits of the special class. 2. The nonacademic benefits of interaction with students without disabilities. 3. The effects of the student’s presence on the teacher and other students in the classroom. 4. The cost of mainstreaming.

Mainstreaming is not required when: 1. A student with disabilities would not receive educational benefit. 2. Any marginal benefit of mainstreaming would be significantly outweighed by benefits that could only be obtained in a segregated setting. 3. The student is a disruptive force in the general education classroom.

1. Can education in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services be achieved satisfactorily? 2. If a student is placed in a more restrictive setting, is the student integrated to the maximum extent appropriate?

1. Can educational services that make a segregated placement appropriate be feasibly provided in an unsegregated setting? 2. If so, the segregated setting is inappropriate.

Judicial Standard

206 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

however, it should be considered a red flag if a student with disabilities is receiving no academic benefit from the particular setting, even if she or he is receiving social benefit (Sharp & Pitasky, 2002).This may be especially true in a situation in which a student with disabilities is older (e.g., high school age). The LRE for a given student with disabilities is not necessarily the general edu­ cation setting, nor is it a setting into which all SWD must fit (a process referred to as shoehorning). LRE is an expansive term that refers to the setting along the CAP in which an individual student with disabilities can receive an appropriate education (i.e., FAPE). In this sense, the LRE requirement may be more accurately thought of as the least restrictive appropriate environment. Courts have emphasized the impor­ tance of school districts using supplementary aids and services in attempt to provide an appropriate education in the general education classroom. Moreover, courts have found that the IDEA clearly requires the maximum amount of integration that is appropriate given an individual student’s needs. A number of judicial rulings have seemed to suggest that attempting a general education placement before moving to a more restrictive setting may be important. Although the IDEA does not actually require a general education placement be attempted first, that may certainly be viewed favorably by a court.What is absolutely essential is that school personnel make good faith efforts to maintain students in the LRE using supplementary aids and services.When a student needs a more restric­ tive setting on the continuum to receive an appropriate education, then school personnel should include a student in settings with his or her nondisabled peers whenever possible and be able to justify their use of the more restrictive setting. A number of courts have affirmed that providing FAPE is the primary mandate of the IDEA, and the LRE for a student is the setting in which he or she will receive a FAPE (e.g., Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, 1986; Devries v. Fairfax County School Board, 1988).Thus, if what is considered to be a more restrictive set­ ting (e.g., special school) is necessary for a student to make progress appropriate in light of his/her circumstances (i.e., receive a FAPE), that setting becomes the LRE for that student. In fact, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, when a student requires a more restrictive setting to receive a FAPE, a school district must place the student in the more restrictive setting (P.D. v. Newington Board of Education, 2008).

Summary of educational inclusion and the government The legislative, executive, and judicial branches have weighed in on issues of educa­ tional inclusion in the sense that laws have been passed, regulations have been prom­ ulgated, policy documents have been released, and judicial rulings been issued on the LRE requirement of the IDEA. Except for a few letters from the USDOE, the terms mainstreaming and inclusion are not used in the law. Clearly, the law expresses the importance of educating SWD alongside their nondisabled peers. Placing stu­ dents in the LRE must be made on an case-by-case basis considering the unique educational needs of the individual student with disabilities. Slater (2010) warned

Inclusion, governments, and NGOs

207

that when making LRE decisions, the most certain path school district personnel may take to incurring liability for the violating LRE and placement requirement of the IDEA is to inform parents that all placements will be made in accordance with a prior district decision (e.g., “All our students with disabilities are educated in general education classrooms,” “All our students with autism are educated in the district’s special school.”). School district personnel must be careful to make certain their placement decisions comply with the LRE and CAP requirements of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the US government and are made based on the individual needs of a student. Moreover, the setting in which a student is education must enable him or her to receive a FAPE.

Nongovernmental organizations Though existing prior to 1945, the term nongovernmental organization, or NGO, became more popular when it was used in the United Nations Charter to demar­ cate a difference between governmental and private organizations (Willetts, 2002). NGOs are organizations free from government control, non-profit, not considered a political party, and are not involved in criminal activity. Whereas independent from government, NGOs often engage in political activities, work closely with governments, and may even have governmental contracts.There are different types of NGOs, and they include charity organizations, churches, research institutes, community-based organizations, and lobbying groups. NGOs typically can be divided into three categories based on their purpose: (a) Community-based organizations, (b) national organizations, and (c) interna­ tional organizations. Community-based organizations are usually established by local members to serve their own needs. National organizations are formed to serve people within an entire country, and international organizations are usually head­ quartered in a developed country and provide services to more than one develop­ ing country. Although there are many NGOs related to services for SWD, this chapter highlights the position statements related to inclusion from major organiza­ tions that are also NGOs. Other NGOs that are not member-based organizations exist, along with NGOs that are church or religion based. Covering their perspec­ tives would be beyond the scope and intent of this chapter and would do little to add to the discussion related to the education of SWD and the services they are expected to receive.

NGOs and inclusion Because of the role NGOs play in providing information and support related to SWD, it is necessary to determine which organizations are the important lead­ ers in special education and their positions on the inclusion of SWD. This sec­ tion considers the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), the Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), the National Council for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), the Autism

208 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

Society of America, an organization serving advocates for people with severe dis­ abilities known as TASH, the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Educa­ tion (AACTE), and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). There are undoubtedly many other NGOs providing services for SWD and their families, but this is not only a good representative cross sample but a representation of the major organizations working to change or modify services.

The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) (www.c-c-d.org) Typically, when one thinks of NGOs, the immediate assumption is the specific organization. CCD is different. It is the umbrella disability coalition of 99 different organizations related to all services for individuals with disabilities—not just their education. The following is a statement from their website: The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, headquartered in Washington DC, is the largest coalition of national organizations working together to advocate for federal public policy that ensures the self-determination, inde­ pendence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. Since 1973, CCD has advocated on behalf of people of all ages with physical and mental disabilities and their families. CCD has worked to achieve federal legislation and regulations that assure that the 54 million children and adults with disabilities are fully inte­ grated into the mainstream of society. (CCD, 2019a) CCD has multiple task forces, including ones related to employment, health, housing, Social Security, transportation, and veterans. For our purposes, we will be focusing on the education task force. Specifically, the purpose of the Education Task Force is as follows: The Education Task Force of CCD monitors federal legislation and regu­ lations that address the educational needs of children and youth with dis­ abilities and their families, including regulatory efforts under federal law such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Education Task Force advocates for high expectations for children with disabilities under these and other laws. (CCD, 2019b) Recently, due to concerns that OSEP about changes in interpretation of the LRE provision of IDEA, it developed a consensus position statement on this issue (CCD, 2019c).The three-part statement is as follows:

Inclusion, governments, and NGOs

1 2 3

209

Every child must be educated in the least restrictive environment to the maxi­ mum extent appropriate. General education classrooms are the least restrictive environment for the vast majority of students. Least restrictive environment and education in the general education class­ room offer benefits for all students ( CCD, 2019c).

As a part of the statement, there was also a section emphasizing: Any interpretation of LRE that differs or weakens the requirement and increases the inappropriate placement of students with disabilities in more segregated settings contradicts the clear language and intent of the IDEA and established legal precedent (CCD, 2019c). In summary, CCD works to represent the disability community in Washington, DC. The policy statement shows CCD’s support for a more inclusive educational experience for students eligible for special education.The disability-specific NGOs have all signed on to the recent statement of the CCD related to the LRE.

The Council for Exceptional Children (cec.sped.org) The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) is the largest professional organ­ ization for special educators in the United States. It has over 25,000 members, including teachers, administrators, related services personnel, and faculty in higher education.The mission statement of CEC is as follows: “The Council for Excep­ tional Children is a professional association of educators dedicated to advancing the success of children with exceptionalities.We accomplish our mission through advo­ cacy, standards, and professional development” (cec.sped.org). The CEC embraces inclusiveness as a part of its mission. However, other than an endorsement on the home page of the recent CCD letter on the Joint Statement on Maintaining the Least Restrictive Environment Requirements of the Individu­ als with Disabilities Education Act, there is no specific policy or statement regard­ ing inclusion.According to the joint statement: As a professional association of educators dedicated to advancing the success of children with exceptionalities, CEC is committed to our core values of visionary thinking, inclusiveness, and integrity. CEC values and seeks diverse and inclusive participation within the field of special education. (CEC, 2019)

Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates (copaa.org) Special education is one of the most litigious areas of education law. As a result, there are many attorneys working in this area. The Council for Parent Attorneys

210 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

and Advocates (COPAA) is the largest attorney organization involved in special education matters. The webpage for noted the purpose of the organizations as follows: The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) is an inde­ pendent, nonprofit, §501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization of attorneys, advo­ cates, parents and related professionals. There are 6.4 million children with disabilities in America. COPAA members work to protect the legal and civil rights of and secure excellence in education on behalf of tens of thou­ sands of students with disabilities and their families each year at the national, state and local levels. (COPAA, 2019a) COPPA has over 2,500 members but does not represent clients. It serves, how­ ever, as a referral agency for parents who have potential questions related to the special educational services of their child. COPAA focuses on the rights of children who receive special education services and supports, and who are eligible to be served under the Indi­ viduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other statutes. This includes working to ensure that children with disabilities receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). COPAA endeavors to improve the quality and quantity of legal assistance for parents of children with dis­ abilities. COPAA does not represent individual parents but provides a net­ work to assist, train, and inform advocates, attorneys, parents, and related professionals. (COPAA, 2019a) COPAA does not have a specific policy statement related to the LRE. However, it recently filed an amicus brief in a case in the First Circuit, C.D. v. Natick (COPAA, 2019b). As a part of their brief in the case, the attorneys for COPAA expressed a preference for the ruling of the US Appeals Court for the Second Circuit Court in Daniel R.R v. State Board of Education (1989) in determining a student’s placement in the LRE (see Table 10.3 for information).The brief is as follows: Simply put, States that accept IDEA funding do not face the question of whether a student should be educated in the least restrictive environment. Rather, Congress has required States and school districts to determine how a child can be educated in the LRE. Thus, school districts must, as a pre­ liminary matter in every case, determine whether the child can be provided with an appropriate education in the regular education classroom with sup­ plementary aids and services. (COPAA, 2019a)

Inclusion, governments, and NGOs

211

National Center for Learning Disabilities (ncld.org) The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) is included because of the massive nation-wide advertising campaign they have been a part of through their subgroup, understood.org. Founded in 1977, the National Center for Learning Dis­ abilities has as its mission: [T]o improve the lives of the 1 in 5 children and adults nationwide with learning and attention issues—by empowering parents and young adults, transforming schools and advocating for equal rights and opportunities. We’re working to create a society in which every individual possesses the academic, social and emotional skills needed to succeed in school, at work and in life. (NCLD, 2019) NCLD is also responsible for understood.org, a website that has had wide atten­ tion nation-wide. It primarily provides resources for parents related to learning and attention issues for students in k-12 education.The purpose of understood.org: [A] comprehensive, free nonprofit resource, is launching today to help parents of children with learning and attention issues. One in five children struggles with issues related to reading, math, writing, focus and organization. Under­ stood.org’s mission is to help parents understand these issues and support them with strategies that can enable their children to go from simply coping to truly thriving in school and in life. (Understood.org, 2019) Both NCLD and understood.org are sponsored by grants and corporations, although NCLD does have a membership component. NCLD was a signatory on the recent CCD statement regarding inclusion. NCLD does not have a spe­ cific statement related to inclusion or education in the LRE on their website, but they do have anecdotal stories about the importance of treating individuals with disabilities with respect, thinking of them as a student first and disability second.

Autism Society of America (autism-society.org) Formerly the National Society for Autistic Children,The Autism Society of Amer­ ica (ASA) was founded in 1965. The name was changed to emphasize that chil­ dren with autism grow up. The ASA’s stated goal is to increase public awareness about autism and the day-to-day issues faced by people with autism as well as their families and the professionals with whom they interact.The ASA supports the recent CCD statement on LRE.

212 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

The ASA has a mission statement related to education, of which there are no specifics related to LRE or inclusion.The following is a few of the important points from the mission statement (autism-society.org): 1 2

3 4 5 6

All students with autism are general education students first—not a separate, isolated group of learners. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) and its planning process should be driven by the academic and functional goals of the student, with the long­ term outcome of supporting successful home, employment, and community life. Schools must be accountable for engaging family members and student in planning and prioritizing for the student within the IEP process. For students with autism, curriculums should be developed promoting univer­ sal design and flexible approaches that can be customized for each student.

Students with autism have the right to have highly qualified teachers and

appropriate behavioral supports. Secondary students should have full membership in their high school community.

TASH (tash.org) TASH has gone through several name changes, more recently known as The Asso­ ciation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, although the acronym TASH was widely used. In 1995, the Board of Directors voted to discontinue the full name of the organization and the acronym,TASH, was maintained due to its wide recognition. Of all the NGOs reviewed,TASH is the one with the most pronounced state­ ments related to inclusion.The mission statement of TASH: As a leader in disability advocacy for 40 years, the mission of TASH is to promote the full inclusion and participation of children and adults with sig­ nificant disabilities in every aspect of their community, and to eliminate the social injustices that diminish human rights. These things are accomplished through collaboration among self-advocates, families, professionals, policy­ makers, advocates and many others who seek to promote equity, opportunity and inclusion. (tash.org/about) The focus of TASH is supporting those people with significant disabilities and support needs who are most at risk for being excluded from society; perceived by traditional service systems as most challenging; most likely to have their rights abridged; most likely to be at risk for living, working, play­ ing and learning in segregated environments; least likely to have the tools and

Inclusion, governments, and NGOs

213

opportunities necessary to advocate on their behalf; and are most likely to need ongoing, individualized supports to participate in inclusive communi­ ties and enjoy a quality of life similar to that available to all people. (tash.org/about)

American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (aacte.org) The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) describes itself as the leading voice on educator preparation. It represents more than 800 postsecondary institutions with educator preparation programs dedicated to high-quality, evidence-based preparation that assures educators are ready to teach all learners. On their website, they do not have any specific statements regarding inclusion, other than one of their core values is diversity, equity, and inclusion. A search of their website using the term inclusion brought responses related to LGQBT issues and did not provide guidance related to students with disabilities.

Council of Chief State School Officers (ccsso.org) Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) describes itself as a nonpartisan, nation-wide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the five US extra-state jurisdictions (i.e.,American Samoa, Commonwealth North­ ern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands). In the CCSSO’s strategic plan for 2017–2020, the only statement related to inclusion or the education of students with disabilities is: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: Ensure CCSSO’s culture promotes equity, is respectful of and celebrates diversity, and is appropriately inclusive in policy and procedures. (ccsso.org)

Summary of NGOs An NGO is usually a non-profit organization that is independent of the govern­ ment and operates on a local, state, national, or international basis. NGOs are often organized around a common interest or area of expertise and may perform a variety of service functions.We have reviewed some of the NGOs with a clear connection to education and students with disabilities.The work of these organizations are of great value because they provide expertise in their respective areas.Their positions on various issues, however, are not equivalent in importance to the official govern­ mental positions on these same issues.

214 Mitchell L. Yell and David F. Bateman

Conclusions Educational inclusion of students with disabilities has been an issue that has been addressed by three branches of the US government and a number of NGOs. Although all these positions are important, only the actions of the legislative, execu­ tive, and judicial branches of the government constitute law and official interpreta­ tions of the law. The IDEA, the regulations implementing the IDEA, court interpretations of the IDEA, and policy documents and letters from the US Department of Education are remarkably clear about educational inclusion, which, in a legal sense, is the LRE mandate of the IDEA.The LRE mandates requires that students with disabilities be educated alongside the peers without disabilities to the maximum extent appropri­ ate. Moreover, school districts must have available the entire CAP to ensure that students with disabilities receive a FAPE in the LRE.“The overriding rule . . . is that placement decisions must be made on an individual basis” (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.552, comment).Thus, IDEA clearly requires the maximum amount of integration that is appropriate given a student’s needs. Certainly, the LRE mandate was a clear expression of congressional preference for educating students with dis­ abilities in the general education classroom when appropriate; however, in the final analysis, the law requires that the primary consideration in determining a student’s placement is where can he or she can receive an appropriate education.

Note 1

OSEP maintains a website with links to all of these Centers. Retrieved from https:// osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center?page=1.

References Autism Society of America. (2019). Statement of principles. Retrieved from Autism-society.org Bateman, B., & Linden, M. A. (2012). Better IEPs: An updated guide to understanding IEPs (5th ed).Verona,WI:Attainment. Council for Exceptional Children. (2019). About us. Retrieved from CEC-sped.org Council of Chief State School Officers. (2017). Strategic plan. Retrieved from https://ccsso. org/sites/default/files/2018-01/2017-2020%20Strategic%20Plan-OnlineVersion.pdf Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. (2019a). About COPAA. Retrieved from www. copaa.org/page/about Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. (2019b). Amicus brief, C. D. v. Natick. Retrieved from https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.copaa.org/resource/collection/FC30F011-EAB6­ 44BE-9721-1F718DA268C1/CD_COPAA_Brief_12-2018.pdf Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. (2019a). About CCD. Retrieved from www.c-c-d. org/rubriques.php?rubpage=1 Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. (2019b). About the education task force. Retrieved from www.c-c-d.org/rubriques.php?rub=taskforce.php&id_task=2 Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. (2019c). Least restrictive environment: A requirement under IDEA: Statement of principles from the education task force of the consortium of citizens with disabilities. Retrieved from www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-LRE-Position-Statement­ final.pdf

Inclusion, governments, and NGOs

215

Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989). Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37(3), 229–237. Huefner, D. S., & Herr, C. (2012). Navigating special education law and policy. Verona, WI: Attainment. Individuals with Disabilities Education, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.114 et seq. Letter to Anonymous, 53 IDELR (OSEP, 2009). Letter to Autin, 58 IDELR 51 (OSERS, 2011). Letter to Earnest, EHLR 211, IDELR 417 (OSERS, 1986). Letter to Estavan, 25, IDELR 1211 (OSEP, 1997). Letter to Frost, 18 IDELR 594 (OSERS, 1991). Letter to Holmes, EHLR 213:101 (OSERS, 1987). Letter to Mordick, EHLR 211:160 (OSERS, 1979). Letter to Richards, EHLR 211:433 (OSERS, 1987). Martin, E. (2013). Breakthrough: Federal Special Education Legislation: 1965–1981. New York: Bardolf & Company. National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2019). Mission and history. Retrieved from ncld. org Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. Kugel & W.Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179–195).Washington, DC: President’s Commission on Mental Retardation. P.D. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F.3d. 111 (2nd Cir., 2008). Reynolds, M. C. (1962). A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 28(7), 367–370. Sharp, K. G., & Pitasky,V. M. (2002). The current legal status of inclusion. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. Slater, A. E. (2010). Placement under the IDEA: Avoiding predetermination and other legal pitfalls. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. Stafford, R. (1974, May 20). Congressional record. Stafford, R. (1978). Education for the handicapped: A senator’s perspective. Vermont Law Review, 3, 71–76. TASH. (2019). About. Retrieved from TASH.org Turnbull, H. R., Stowe, M., & Huerta, N. E. (2007). Free appropriate public education:The law and children with disabilities (6th ed.). Denver, CO: Love. Understood.org. (2019). Our mission. Retrieved from www.understood.org/en/about/ our-mission US Department of Education. (2006). Comments to the final IDEA regulations. Federal Register, 46,585, 2006. US Department of Education. (2017). Questions and answers (Q&A) on US Supreme Court Case decision, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1. Retrieved from https://sites. ed.gov/idea/files/qa-endrewcase-12-07-2017.pdf Willetts, P. (2002). What is a non-governmental organization? (Article 1.44.3.7). UNESCO Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems. Retrieved from www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/ CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM

11

THE IMPACT OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE CRPD ON SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN GERMANY, PORTUGAL, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, AND THE NETHERLANDS Dimitris Anastasiou, Marion Felder, Luís Augusto De Miranda Correia, Alexey Shemanov, Inge Zweers, and Bernd Ahrbeck Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to explore the impact of Article 24 of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on special and inclusive education in European countries. As of September 1, 2019, 83 countries and the European Union had completed a full cycle of reporting and monitoring in accordance with the implementation of the CRPD.This cycle typi­ cally includes four sets of UN documents: a state party report; a list of issues (LOIs) in relation to the state party report written by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (henceforth CRPD Committee), a body of 18 experts who monitor the implementation of the convention; the replies to the LOIs by the state party; and the concluding observations (COs) on the initial report of the state party with two components: Observations or concerns and recommendations (including requests and urgings) of the CRPD Committee. This last document is the most important document in the monitoring process. Through the COs, the CRPD Committee forms policy recommendations for the state party. In 2016, the CRPD Committee released General Comment No. 4, which constituted a controversial interpretation of the CRPD. The CRPD Committee (2016a) reinterpreted Article 24’s “right to education” in the CRPD, other inter­ national treaties, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to mean “right to inclusive education” in its General Comment No. 4 (Anastasiou, Gregory, & Kauffman, 2018).This reinterpretation may mean that every special education set­ ting, other than general education classrooms, can be considered an instance of dis­ crimination and may constitute segregation. Surprisingly, the CRPD Committee

The impact of Article 24

217

(2016a) did not provide an operationalizing definition of inclusive education to define the key measures and agents for its proper realization. Deemphasizing the importance of learning, it avoided a reference to specially designed instruction, spe­ cial education teachers, co-teaching, or even the role of special education as a disci­ pline.An exception to this tendency was mention of the education of students with traditional sensory impairments (i.e., visual and hearing impairments) for which the CRPD Committee provided a list of specific measures (Anastasiou et al., 2018). Furthermore, the CRPD Committee arbitrarily stated that the right to edu­ cation is the right of child, not the right of a parent or caregiver (CRPD Com­ mittee, 2016a, para. 10). This view strongly deviates from the traditions enshrined in other international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 13(3), which have explicitly recognized the right of parents to choose schools for their children (Anastasiou et al., 2018). It seems paternalistic to make general education classrooms mandatory when parents and their children agree to choose a specialized educational setting with a concentration of specialists and services that they believe offers better learning opportunities and will be more beneficial for them (Gordon, 2013). In this chapter, we explore the implementation of Article 24 of the CRPD in Germany, Portugal, Russia, and the Netherlands. The order of the countries has been determined by the chronological order in which their COs were issued; that is, the COs document was issued for Germany in 2015, for Portugal in 2016, and for Russia in 2018, whereas the Netherlands has not yet received its COs.We can assume that these policy documents have played a role in the CRPD implemen­ tation in different countries, as they are usually followed by legislative changes. Through the following analysis of the four cases, we delineate the legal and political impact of Article 24 of the CRPD and the CRPD Committee’s recommendations; portray social, political, and academic debates surrounding the implementation of Article 24; explore the implications for special and inclusive education in these countries; and discuss the consequences for the needs of students with disabilities (SWD) and their parents.

1. Germany The CRPD committee recommendations to Germany The CRPD was ratified by Germany on February 24, 2009. In 2015, the CRPD Committee completed its first review of Germany’s implementation of the CRPD. The CRPD Committee expressed concern that Germany “segregates” students with disabilities, many of whom were being taught in special schools and special classes with fewer included in general education classrooms.The CRPD Commit­ tee recommended a national strategy for inclusion and a scaling down of special schools by allowing students to attend general education schools if that is their choice (CRPD Committee, 2015a).

218 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

The impact on the German education system In Germany the federal states (Bundeslaender) decide how the educational sys­ tem is structured and organized. Germany does not have a centralized educational system where the federal government prescribes a plan of action for the states (Laender).This would be against the German Constitution. Given this structure of the educational system, a single national strategy for inclusion would be difficult to implement. In addition, Germany has a tiered educational system, meaning that there are different types of secondary schools a student can enter, historically based on academic achievement, after the fourth grade of elementary education. SWD are a part of this educational system (Ahrbeck, Felder, & Schneiders, 2018). Largely unheeded in Germany and elsewhere, the Council of Europe (2006) clearly stated that educational traditions and structures need to be recognized when implement­ ing the Disability Action Plan 2006–2015.A one size fits all solution was not recom­ mended. In Germany, all children must attend school for at least 12 years. Parents have a duty to send their children to school; failure to do so is punishable by law. Thus, Germany realizes the right to education for all children, and no child is excluded from school. Often stated and/or implied in the CRPD Committee’s rec­ ommendations is the accusation that SWD receive an inferior education in special schools and that Germany misses the goal of inclusion (Schumann, 2016). However, this accusation was firmly rebutted by Germany in its response to draft Comment No. 4 of the CRPD (CRPD Committee, 2015b). Germany stated that special education teachers receive exceptional training, comparable to those who teach students without disabilities. Special schools are not seen as a “human rights violation” but rather special measures as described in Article 4 of the CRPD (German Statement, 2016). Germany also stated that the term segregation has very negative connotations, whereas the educational system in Germany builds upon the right of parents to decide whether to send their children to general education or special education schools, a right that is guaranteed in the constitution (Article 6(2); German Statement, 2016). Inconsistencies in Article 24 can lead to different interpretations of the CRPD (Anastasiou et al., 2018). Furthermore, in Germany, many problems continue to occur with the translation of the CRPD (Felder & Schneiders, 2018). For example, there is the question of whether the education system means a single school type for all or a single education system for all that allows for different types of schools and units, including schools for students with special educational needs (SEN) (EllgerRüttgardt, 2016; Felder & Schneiders, 2016, 2018; Hillenbrand, 2016; Speck, 2016). The monitoring body for the CRPD in Germany, the German Institute for Human Rights (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte [DIM]), firmly rejects the idea of a system that includes special schools; in their opinion, this is incompatible with the CRPD (DIM, 2019). These interpretation issues continue to contribute to debates about the implications of the CRPD for school structures and school organization. Some demand a One School for All solution (Jennessen & Wagner, 2012). In a response to the German Statement on General Comment No. 4 (2016),

The impact of Article 24

219

the organization Politik gegen Aussonderung—Koalition für Integration und Inklusion eV (Politics against Exclusion—Coalition for Integration and Inclusion eV) described their vision of One School for All in Germany. Such schools would enroll all stu­ dents, irrespective of type or severity of disability or special need in general educa­ tion classrooms at all times, consistent with a full inclusion model ensuring that all children are taught together. Politik gegen Aussonderung (2016) argued that parents should not have the right to choose between general education and special educa­ tion as this is incompatible with a human rights approach.The organization believes special schools should be abolished and only tolerated during a transitional period (Politik gegen Aussonderung—Koalition für Integration und Inklusion eV, 2016). DIM, the CRPD monitoring body, also rejects special classes (News4teachers, 2016). In addition to questioning special schools and special classes, proponents of full inclu­ sion also reject special education categories, as well as any kind of “special interven­ tion,” which some consider stigmatizing and even racist (Hinz, 2009). Others interpret the CRPD differently.They claim that the focus should be the welfare of the child. Children should learn in the setting that offers the best oppor­ tunities for development (Hillenbrand, 2013). SWD may not always learn best in general education classrooms. There has been a heated debate about these issues over the past 10 years (Dannenbeck & Bretländer, 2018).

Attitudes toward inclusion In 2019,Aktion Mensch (an organization supporting inclusion and rights for peo­ ple with disabilities), the German magazine DIE ZEIT and the Institute for Applied Social Sciences (INFAS) conducted a representative survey about “school inclusion” to honor the 10th anniversary of the ratification of the CRPD.The survey had two parts. The first consisted of INFAS asking a sample of 1,500 people about their attitudes toward societal and school inclusion. In this sample group, parents were over-represented; it included parents who had children with and without SEN (Aktion Mensch, 2019).The second part came from data collected by the Nationaler Bildungspanel (National Educational Panel; NEPS), a national panel providing data on educational processes and competence building from 2009–2016. Of 11,755 students surveyed, 94% said that they supported inclusion in recreational activities; however, only 66% supported inclusive classrooms. Among parents whose children with and without SEN have attended inclusive schools, 78% supported them, whereas 61% of those without experience of inclu­ sive schooling supported it. In addition, 75% of all 1,500 respondents said that they are convinced of the positive effects of school inclusion such as increased tolerance, a higher level of caring about others, and improved social interactions, but only 60% said that an inclusive school prepares students well for employment. Respondents especially questioned whether typically performing students would have their needs met (Aktion Mensch, 2019). Of parents whose children have attended inclusive schools, 55% said that inclusion hinders the development of typically performing students, whereas only 47% parents without experience of inclusive schooling had

220 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

the same response. Of parents whose children have attended inclusive schools, 48% thought inclusion would improve the education of academically challenged stu­ dents, whereas 64% of parents without experience of inclusive schooling believed the same. Of all respondents, 63% believed that classes are too large and that there is a lack of personnel, while 55% expressed that there are not enough social workers, special educators, and school psychologists involved in inclusive schools (Aktion Mensch, 2019). Overall, the data show that respondents were in general supportive of inclusion, but when it comes to learning together at all times, there is much skepti­ cism. Parents who have experienced inclusion firsthand seem to have a more dif­ ferentiated picture of inclusion (Aktion Mensch, 2019) and perhaps more realistic expectations of what inclusive education can accomplish.

Political context and implications Since 1994, the Bildungsrat, the main federal Educational Council consisting of the education ministers of Germany, stated that the goal of more commonality in learning of students with and without SEN is necessary. Once Germany signed the CRPD in 2007 and ratified it in 2009, changes occurred in the school system more rapidly (Aktion Mensch, 2019). Educational laws in some states have set out that inclusive education is a parental choice. Other states give priority to inclusive settings by law, but this is dependent on whether appropriate accommodations and supports can be given to a student in such a setting. In some states no preference is stated between special settings and inclusive classrooms.There are many more inclusive schools in Germany now than previously, but it is not clear how and if students in those schools learn together in the same classroom at all times or whether they are pulled out of the general education classroom. Statistics show that students with SEN comprise 44% of all fourth grade classrooms but only 17% of all ninth grade classrooms (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2018). Recent data revealed that 523,800 students with SEN are educated in the Ger­ man education system (Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepub­ lik Deutschland [Association of Ministers of Culture and Education in Germany] (KMK), 2018). In the period 2007–2016, the percentage of students with SEN increased from 5.8% to 7.0% (KMK, 2018). In the 2017–2018 school year, 42.5% of SWD were in general schools and 57.5% in special schools (KMK, 2019). The number of special schools has decreased; in 2005 there were 3,468 special schools, whereas there were 2,865 special schools (in comparison to 32,995 general educa­ tion schools) in 2017 (Statista, 2019). However, since 2007 the percentage of stu­ dents in special schools in relation to the total number of school-age students has not changed and is currently at 4.2% (KMK, 2018).The monitoring body (DIM) considers this as evidence that not much has changed in the past 10 years. However, the problem with the distinction between “inclusion” meaning physi­ cally integrating SWD in general education schools and “exclusion” meaning teaching SWD in special schools is that it says very little about the quality of

The impact of Article 24

221

teaching occurring in those settings (Deutscher Lehrerverband, 2018). Problems with quality instruction and the implementation of genuinely inclusive schools and classrooms have been highlighted by professionals, parents’ organizations, advo­ cates, and unions in recent years.There are problems such as a shortage of trained teachers, large size classrooms, and a lack of plans on how to implement inclusion (Nöldeke, 2018). In North-Rhine Westphalia, 90% of parents’ representatives see significant problems in the implementation of inclusion in schools. Most parents were supportive of maintaining special schools.When parents had experience with inclusion, that number was slightly higher (Ahrbeck et al., 2015). A survey con­ ducted by a teacher’s union arrived at similar results; nearly 98% of teachers reject the closure of all special schools (Forsa, 2015).A recent survey involving 500 teach­ ers in Baden-Wuerttemberg had similar results: Only 56% of teachers supported inclusion, compared to two-thirds supporting inclusion in 2015, and 61% of teach­ ers said that the conditions in general schools are extremely deficient for inclusive education (Forsa, 2019). There are two large unions for teachers, the Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wis­ senschaft (GEW; Education and Science Union), which has about 280,000 mem­ bers, and the Deutscher Lehrerverband (DLV; German Teacher Association), which has 160,000 members (Zeit Online, 2018).The GEW, which supports inclusive educa­ tion and a One School for All approach, criticizes the lack of resources for inclusion (Tepe, 2017). The DLV demanded a moratorium on inclusive education in 2018 because of its poor execution. In their opinion, special schools closed too quickly, and inclusive education has not been well implemented (Breyton, 2018a). Some states, like North-Rhine-Westphalia, the largest state in Germany, which includes the cities of Düsseldorf, Cologne, Dortmund, and Essen, pursued the closure of special schools under a Social Democratic Party and Green Party coalition govern­ ment.After they lost the state elections in 2017, partly because of educational policy and particularly school inclusion implementation (Himmelrath, 2017), the current Conservative-Liberal government has markedly slowed down this development. In the small Saarland state, two new special schools for students with social-emotional needs have recently opened (Schmoll, 2018). The monitoring body (DIM) claims that inclusion is not working because Ger­ many continues to operate a system that includes special education schools. DIM advocates for the closure of all special schools because maintaining a dual system is too costly (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, 2019). They state that if all special schools close, the resources will go to inclusive schools (Breyton, 2018b). Nevertheless, as of now, even with the closure of special schools, problems with inclusion persist (Breyton, 2018b; Schmoll, 2018). In states that have aggressively tried to implement a full inclusion policy, the reality does not confirm the DIM’s claim. For example, in Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), all schools for students with special learning needs were slotted to close, but significant problems with the implementation of inclusive schools continue to exist. Remarkably, some students have even been sent home from school because teachers in inclusive classrooms cannot manage their behavior (Döhner & Berger, 2019). As a consequence, half of

222 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

the special schools currently continue to operate with a time-limited permit. All special education schools are supposed to be closed by the end of the next decade. In Bremen, there are also persistent quality problems with inclusive schools, even though most special schools have already been closed (Sundermann, 2017a, 2017b).

Consequences for students with disabilities in Germany There is a consensus that more needs to be done so that students have common learning experiences across different states.The CRPD increased disability aware­ ness and inclusive practices by accelerating developments that the Educational Council in Germany started in 1994. German states pursue different paths of inclu­ sion and with different paces of change, based on their interpretation of the CRPD. Inclusion statistics indicating how many students with SEN are present in gen­ eral education schools have become the criteria of “successful inclusion,” particu­ larly in political contexts and during elections. However, high percentages of SWD in general education settings do not say much about the quality of education in those settings and the learning progress of those students. The political contest over the highest inclusion rates should be viewed with skepticism. In some states, it is unclear if parents will be able to choose between special and general education schools in the near future. In places where there are no alternatives or where schools have closed, the choice has basically been taken away. Given the problems with the implementation of inclusive education, this can pose significant problems for a student’s education. Even following the CRPD Committee’s (2016a) recommendations, in a state-of-the-art inclusive classroom, some students may not be best served in either the short- or long-term because the specific goals or methods or progress may not be possible in that setting. A setting can impose limits on what is possible educationally; therefore, options and a con­ tinuum of settings—with a preference perhaps toward inclusive settings—would be most realistic for ensuring the right to education for all students with SEN. It can also be questioned whether the closure of special schools will indeed lead to better conditions in inclusive classrooms as has been stated repeatedly by the monitoring body in Germany. The allocation and relocation of funds always depends on political decisions and the general financial situation in communities and states.There is no guarantee that the “additional” resources gained from special schools’ closures will actually benefit SWD in inclusive schools.The Saarland was one of the first states that implemented inclusion state-wide in 1985. Inclusion has been chronically underfinanced since then. Students with disabilities (develop­ mental disabilities, learning disabilities, or emotional problems) receive an average of 1.67 hours per week of service delivery by a special education teacher. The Saarland state has been showcasing high inclusion rates but severely neglecting the needs of students (Buhr, 2017). Conditions for effective inclusion are expensive. It is estimated that effective specialized services in general education classrooms cost as much as 3.5 times those provided in special schools.This fact has been severely underestimated by state governments, and thus politicians continue to call upon

The impact of Article 24

223

teachers’ positive attitudes toward inclusion as the main factor for its success (Buhr, 2017). In several states, diagnostic assessments—particularly for a suspected learning disability, behavioral disorder, and speech-language disabilities—by special educa­ tion teachers have been postponed by school law until after elementary school.This is politically rationalized to avoid labeling and stigmatization (KMK, 2018). How­ ever, this practice has consequences for students. For example, in North-RhineWestphalia, any kind of special education assessment now has to be initiated by the parent or guardian, and only in exceptional cases by teachers or the school. In the case of a suspected learning disability, an assessment can only be initiated by the school after the third grade.Therefore, concerns grow especially in elementary schools about students who have undiagnosed SEN, particularly those with socialemotional problems.These students most likely will receive no specific services due to a lack of assessment. Schools may fail to inform parents that it is their responsibil­ ity to ask for an assessment (Steude, 2019).At the same time, the number of students with social-emotional problems has increased dramatically in recent years.This situ­ ation is of particular concern in inclusive settings because those settings often fail to offer intensive educational services.Thus, they bear a high risk of excluding these children from school altogether (Verband Sonderpädagogik, e.V., 2017). Another problem is that special education teachers are assigned to schools based on the number of students and/or students per grade in that school and not on assessed need (KMK, 2018).The Association of Ministers of Culture and Education (KMK) expressed concern that due to this practice, in combination with a lack of assessment, it may be difficult to get reliable data on the number of students with SEN in the future (KMK, 2018). A blanket-style distribution of funds to schools without a transparent and accountable process of assessment and delivery of a student’s individual educational plan risks injustice and “take-away” effects, which means that funds are not spent on what they are supposed to be spent on within a school. In schools, there are many different interests and conflicts between different priorities—for instance, how available resources should be spent and for whom. School decisions may not always be in the best interest of a child with a disability. For example, it is now a common practice in schools that special education teachers function as substitute teachers when a classroom teacher is absent (Schmoll, 2018; Sundermann, 2017a). Even though a special education teacher’s role is to support students with SEN, there may be a de facto change in that role on as-needed basis. Another area of conflict concerns the specific role of special education teach­ ers and curricula in inclusive schools. Some models of teamwork between general and special education teachers support the idea that students with SEN should only be instructed in academic subjects because all other needs can be met whilst teaching those.They claim that academics are the best preparation for competency and self-esteem development. In such models, special education teachers function more or less as instructional assistants to general education teachers; their primary role is to support students to reach academic curriculum goals. Other scholars and

224 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

stakeholders support “dual models” that maintain a focus not just on academics but also on other areas such as behavior, social skills, life-skills, recreation, etc. (Thamm et al., 2019). In our view, teaching academics is very important, but a single focus on academics would destroy the need for a functional curriculum, and this could exclude children from achieving non-academic curriculum goals. In short, the focus needs to be on the welfare on the individual child with a disability.

2. Portugal The legal context in Portugal In Portugal, the education of children and adolescents with SEN was governed by Decree-Law No 3 of 2008 until July 6, 2018.The 2008 Decree-Law was based on the functional model of disability according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model. Although this legislation was problematic as a basis for identification and support, including the development of Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs), and discriminated against certain disability categories, such as specific learning disabilities (SLD), it nevertheless addressed important issues of SWD and/or special education needs (SEN). Moreo­ ver, traditionally in Portugal, inclusive education for SWD was considered to be distinct from inclusive education for students with other forms of diversity (e.g., from culturally diverse backgrounds), recognizing the many faces of human diversity. Portugal ratified the CRPD, including the Optional Protocol, in July 2009. Despite the then-recent educational decree-law of 2008, the Ministry of Education (MoE) tried to comply with Article 24 of the CRPD and, later, with the conclud­ ing observations (COs) of the CRPD Committee (2016b). These recommenda­ tions demanded the promotion of, and investment in, inclusive education for all students with disabilities without exceptions even for “deaf, blind, deaf-blind, and visually impaired students, as well as for students with autism” (CRPD Commit­ tee, 2016b, para. 44). This process resulted in the repeal of Decree-Law No. 3 of 2008 and the introduction of the new Decree-Law No. 54 of July 6, 2018 (here­ after Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018). The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE, n.d.), which plays an important role in promoting Article 24 and General Comment No 4 of the CRPD Committee, considered the Portuguese Decree-Law very innovative and a model for other European countries.

Invisible disabilities and disability priorities In the process of implementing Article 24 and preparing Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018, there was considerable anxiety among the MoE authorities about meeting the rhetoric of Article 24 of the CRPD. Although Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 refers to mental health problems (Article 2) or cognitive difficulties (Article 10), it fails to recognize that these problems or difficulties can be elevated to disabling conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disabilities, behavioral

The impact of Article 24

225

and emotional disorders, and learning disabilities.These disabilities are invisible in Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018, and as such children with these disabilities may be exempt from effective special education services that are essential to their develop­ ment and success in school. Remarkably, most of the provisions for explicit special education are geared solely toward educating children who are blind, deaf, and deaf and blind (sensory disabilities). On the priorities of Article 24,Anastasiou et al. (2018) stated the following: This explicit acknowledgement and special treatment of sensory disabilities, in the context of an instrument that is largely silent about certain other types of disabilities, has the effect of elevating the visibility of some disabilities (and their associated educational needs) over others. (p. 665) Although Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 recognizes that all SWD have the right to a quality education, educational success cannot be achieved without appropriate special education services, a network of programs, and continuum of placements designed for students with certain special educational needs that promote optimal learning and social inclusion.

The notion of inclusion in Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 Although there is consensus that inclusion should be a basic principle of education for SWD, the notion of inclusion is vaguely defined, and a spirit of sameness in edu­ cation for SWD dominates:“The right of all children and pupils to access and par­ ticipate, fully and effectively, in the same educational contexts” (Article 3, definition c).This vague language may comply with an uncritical inclusion cult, but it shows a very narrow understanding of the concept of “an inclusive education system” as it is formulated in the first paragraph of Article 24 (Anastasiou et al., 2018). Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 is preoccupied only with the placement of SWD in general educa­ tion classes—exempting only students with sensory disabilities—rather than effec­ tive organizational requirements for learning for the whole spectrum of disabilities (Correia, 2017b).Vague rhetoric with undefined terms such as universal design for learning (Introduction), differentiated instruction (e.g., Article 8), and non-scientific language concerning “different learning styles of each pupil” (Article 2) are out of tune with the abilities and special educational needs of SWD. In short, the educa­ tion of SWD has become diluted in the sea of superficial discourse on equality and participation that covers a stealth agenda for neoliberal cuts in their education. Undoubtedly, inclusion should guarantee the right of all students with SEN to a free, public, and quality education system designed to meet their specific abilities and needs and prepare them for life. Unfortunately, the Portuguese decree-law does not guarantee that the education system will provide a full range of specialized instruction, services, and professional staff, all of which are necessary for a robust inclusive education system (Anastasiou et al., 2018). Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018

226 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

never mentions the concepts of special educational needs and special needs. Even the word disabilities is used only twice in the decree-law to refer to the CRPD and “representatives of persons with disabilities.” This negation clashes with the Articles 19, 20, and 21 of Law No. 46 (1986) on which the Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 is supposedly based. Crafting a decree-law with generic language about “specialized resources of support to learning and inclusion” (Article 10) without necessary clarifications makes it highly unlikely that Portugal will reach the desired goal of a quality inclu­ sive and specialized education for all SWD.The concepts of inclusive education and one school for all (meaning a single type of a general school), which historically arose almost simultaneously in Portugal, may have led to a unifying but confusing con­ cept in the decree-law about “an education for all” that penetrates the letter (e.g., Article 33) and spirit of the law.

An ongoing restructuring process in special education Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 created a new organizational resource, the Learning Support Center.The decree-law states the following: [T]he “Specialized Unit” model is reconfigured into a “Learning Support Centre” model, which absorbs the first and redefines itself as a dynamic, plural space which assembles both human and material resources, mobilizing the knowledge and skills of the school for inclusion, valuing the knowledge and experiences of all. (Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018, Introduction) The status of the Learning Support Centers mentioned in Article 13 is volatile. Such a center can be a non-autonomous organizational resource providing addi­ tional services and/or part of a general school supporting “the teachers of the group or class to which the students belong” (Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018, Article 13). Nevertheless, Article 36 clarifies that Learning Support Centers “will encompass the existing facilities, in particular the specialized units” and that students supported by these centers “have priority in the renewal of registration, regardless of their area of residence.” In addition, the decree-law promotes Resource Centers for Inclusion (RCIs). Since 2008, several Portuguese special schools have been converted into RCIs. RCIs provide indirect services to teachers, specialists, and families and also direct services to students for education, work, leisure, and social participation (EASNIE, n.d.). According to the new decree-law, RCIs provide “specialized services of the com­ munity,” and they “support the inclusion of children and pupils” working “in a ped­ agogical . . . partnership with schools, providing specialized services, as facilitators of implementation of policies and practices of inclusive education” (Article, 18). Although the decree-law refers to “special education establishments with a cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Education” (Article 11), to date, their

The impact of Article 24

227

“access, attendance and financing” are uncertain (Article 37). The decree-law is only clear about the reference schools designated to address the needs of students with visual impairments and blindness (Article, 14), as well as those of students with deafness (Article 15). In a burst of clarity, the decree-law specifies the needs of those types of SWD. For example, it refers to Braille literacy, orientation and mobility, assistive products/devices to access the curriculum, and activities of daily living and social skills (Article 14). In the case of students with visual impairments and blindness, the decree-law states that these students need the support of “teach­ ers with specialized training in special education,” and that students with deafness need “teachers with specialized training in special education in the area of deaf­ ness, Portuguese Sign Language (PSL) teachers, PSL interpreters and speech thera­ pists” (Articles 14, 15). However, the exact functioning of the “reference schools” becomes unclear when the decree-law also refers to “reference schools for early childhood intervention” (Article 16). It is noteworthy that Portugal has undergone a deep restructuring of its special education settings over the last decade.As of 2016, 7.56% of the school population had an official decision of SEN. Of these students, only 0.14% were enrolled in spe­ cial schools, 1.20% attended special classes, and 6.23% were in general educational settings for at least 80% of the school day, according to the definition of EASNIE (2018, pp. 21, 27, 32, 37). Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 is expected to further shrink traditional special education settings, such as special education classes.

A three-level system of support Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 introduces a multilevel (three levels) intervention model as the main methodological tool “to support learning and inclusion” (Introduction,Article 7).The approach bears a resemblance to that of the US Responseto-Intervention (RTI) approach or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). In the Portuguese three-level model, the support measures are organized into three interventional levels: universal, selective, and additional (Article 7). At the first level, the universal measures include differentiated instruction, curricular accommodations, curriculum enrichment, promotion of pro-social behavior, and interventions, with an academic or behavioral focus, in small groups (Article 8).At the second level, the selective measures include differentiated curricular pathways, non-significant curricu­ lar adaptations, psycho-pedagogical support, learning reinforcement, and tutorial support.These selective measures “are implemented with the material and human resources available in the school” (Article 9). At the third level, the additional meas­ ures include significant curricular adaptations, individual transition plans, structured teaching methodologies and strategies, and personal and social autonomy compe­ tencies (Article 9). The involvement of a special education teacher is not anticipated at the second level, but the third level of additional measures requires the intervention of a spe­ cial education teacher “as an advocate, manager and specialist in differentiating the means and materials of learning to be, preferably, implemented in the context of the

228 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

classroom” (Article 10).Thus, even at the third level, it is not clear whether a special education teacher provides direct teaching. In general, it is not clear in the Portu­ guese decree-law that the third level is special education.A plausible interpretation is that only when a student has not responded to the third-level additional measures will he/she be referred for evaluation for special education services. However, a preventive system of supports should have clear functional roles. If the functional role of the first level is to provide quality core instruction and the role of the second level to address the needs of low-achieving students at risk of developing disabilities, then the question is what the role of the third level of intervention should be. If the third level has a discrete functional role of serving SWD, this cannot be other than special education (Anastasiou, 2018; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). In Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018, there is much ambivalence about the roles of these levels and the potential beneficiaries of measures as well as obscurity in the procedures. The procedures for evaluation, “identification,” and intervention and from level to level are unclear. What are the criteria for determining responsiveness and/or non-responsiveness to an intervention? What is the timeline for evaluating whether an intervention at the second level (selective measures), for example, is successful? Without proper leg­ islative regulation, consistent implementation procedures cannot be developed. In addition, the Portuguese education system lacks experience in the use of curriculum-based measurements (CBMs), which are basic tools for monitoring the progress of students and the effectiveness of an intervention. The develop­ ment of CBMs requires much time and a long-term plan. In Portugal, both the current legislation and the training offered by higher education institutions and other accredited entities are inadequate.The existing initial preparation training (undergraduate), specialized training, and continuing education for general and special educators are rather inadequate for the successful realization of the threelevel system of support. Given this background and several ambiguities in the decree-law, the three-level system can eventually act as a mechanism to delay a student’s comprehensive evaluation for special education services and, therefore, the need for special education (Anastasiou, 2018; Correia, 2018; Kavale, Kauff­ man, Bachmeir, & LeFever, 2008).

Naming and identification issues Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 seems to embrace the “de-categorization” rhetoric that preceded the passing of the decree-law. In its Introduction, the statement,“there is a moving away from the rationale that it is necessary to categorize to intervene,” assumes that the non-reference to disability types “allow[s] each student to progress in the curriculum in a way that ensures their educational success” (Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018, Introduction). However, it is not possible to discuss anything without naming specific char­ acteristics that deserve our attention.We cannot talk about students’ special needs without identifying their specific and atypical characteristics unless we intend

The impact of Article 24

229

to ignore these characteristics (Kauffman & Anastasiou, 2018). In the case of disabilities, the identification of SWD is important for these students and their parents and teachers to plan and organize specialized education that correspond to their needs. Identification incorporates categorizing and naming processes that are human cognitive processes. These cognitive processes emerge instinctively, and when they are approximately accurate, understood, and widely respected, then identification can convey an important body of information that is useful for designing effective interventions. In addition, scientifically based identifica­ tion can help reduce the stigma of unofficial “names” assigned by non-specialists, which so often accompany students with disabilities (Kauffman & Anastasiou, 2018). An attempted abolition of non-sensory disability categories designed to clarify specific conditions and demonstrate human welfare concern for these conditions, as it the case in the Portuguese decree-law, means that the subjects of the law are rendered unknown, and this can impede the rights of SWD with other than sensory disabili­ ties (Correia, 2018). A total shift in the amounts of support in place for disability types, despite the rhetoric, eliminates the protected “class” of the right to qual­ ity education—that is, the persons who are entitled to receive specially designed instruction. This sort of postmodern rhetoric about categorizing is a regression to the ancient past and not an indicator of scientific progress or sensitivity to the welfare of persons with special educational needs (Correia, 2017a; Kauffman & Anastasiou, 2018).

Future paths for special and inclusive education in Portugal Decree-Law No. 54 of 2018 does not guarantee the existence and/or effectiveness of special education services for all students with SEN, particularly for those whose disabilities are more invisible and intertwined with cognitive mechanisms of learn­ ing (i.e., students with intellectual disabilities, low-functioning autism, severe com­ munication disorders, severe psychosocial disorders, learning disabilities). At least to date, the legislation remains confused and incoherent. Furthermore, it does not ensure specialized evidence-based interventions and appropriate procedures and provisions.A set of clear and precise administrative procedures at all levels and fidel­ ity in the implementation of the three-level system of supports across the country are important but questionable issues in the decree-law. Finally, the decree-law does not guarantee the necessary financial resources (Correia, 2018). We know that students with SEN can learn when there is congruence among (a) their characteristics, abilities, and needs; (b) the qualifications and attitudes of teachers; and (c) appropriate specialized support.This does not seem to be the case with Decree-Law 54 of 2018. Students with disabilities are likely to be dumped in general education classrooms without appropriate specialized support and, thereby, be denied their opportunities for school success and preparation for life. Ongoing and nearly full inclusion may lead to the “functional exclusion” of these students in general education classes.

230 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

Thus, an alteration of the current legislation is of utmost importance. Wellfounded legislation that can drive quality educational practices for all students with SEN and promote the implementation of effective, evidence-based programs is needed (Correia, 2008). A good new law focusing on the special needs of SWD, along with the necessary human and financial resources, could maximize their learning and inclusion.

3. The Russian Federation The legal context in Russia Although inclusive education had already emerged in Russia before the UN CRPD, it was not officially adopted as a major principle in the education of per­ sons with disabilities (PWD) across the country until after its ratification in 2012. Russia ratified the CRPD in September 2012. In the current Russian Federation Law on Education, which was implemented as a result of the CRPD ratification, Article 2 defines inclusive education as “equal access to education for all students, given the diversity of special educational needs and individual accommodations” (Federal Law No. 273-FZ, 2012; henceforth Federal Law, 2012). Before the ratification of the UN Convention, the Moscow Law (2010) titled On the Education of Persons with Disabilities in the City of Moscow stated that “Inclusive education is a joint education (learning), including the organization of joint training sessions, leisure, various types of additional education of persons with disabilities and persons who do not have such limitations” (Moscow Law No 16, 2010,Article 2). The formulation of the Federal Law is different from that of Moscow Law.The latter defined the education settings for SWD as joint learning with special accom­ modations for their special educational needs. In the Moscow Law, officials have the obligation for the following: The creation of special accommodations and training of persons with dis­ abilities in public educational institutions in accordance with their psycho­ logical, pedagogical and medical indications (and contraindications), medical certificate and/or recommendations of a Psychological, Medical and Peda­ gogical Commission. (Moscow Law No. 16, 2010,Article 3) However, special schools are not mentioned explicitly in the new Federal Law (2012), although general education schools may have specialized in special edu­ cation; these schools were special (remedial) schools of general education before the new legislation was adopted. Moreover, special education units and special education classes are considered de facto parts of big complex schools if a city or large town has such large settings. In general, the continuum of placements for students with disabilities who need specialized instruction or other support in Russia includes:

The impact of Article 24

1

2

3

4 5

231

Instruction in mainstream general education schools without specialized instruction, when the SWD does not have any special educational needs except to have sufficient access to all facilities in the school or the need for physical help—a teaching assistant without higher pedagogical education may help him/her. Instruction in mainstream general education schools with the assistance of a special education teacher or a tutor who has training in special education.When a student’s skills do not allow him/her to attend the general education program, the specialized teacher or tutor applies either an adjusted general education pro­ gram or a specialized program in a pullout special education unit, according to an individual learning plan.The special education teacher or tutor can also help SWD to communicate with other students in these inclusive settings and encourage his/her school integration. For a significant part of their time, SWD are placed in general education classes and, for part of the day, they may get instruction individually or with other SWD by a special education teacher. Instruction in general education schools specialized in teaching SWD with the assis­ tance of special education teachers; these schools were former special educa­ tion schools. Special education units that specialize in teaching SWD within large complex schools. Homebound or hospital instruction. Because of underfunding in some regions with a low population density and/or low income, these options depend on the available specialized teachers of a school and can differ in the quality of educa­ tional services.

The right to choose a school The Federal Law of Education (No. 3266–1, 1992) had established the right of par­ ents or guardians to choose school or homebound education.This meant education within the family unit (“family learning”) or in a noncertified private school; after this education, a SWD had the right to get accreditation by educational organiza­ tions to obtain a state certificate.This former law of education (passed in 1992) did not describe explicitly how a child with a disability might become a learner in a special education setting, which was one of the established types of schools (the fifth type according to Article 12); this was established by other legal documents such as the Ministry of Education Orders. General education schools did not have any obligation to create special educational support for children with disabilities. Consequently, the right of choosing did not include a truly inclusive or special edu­ cation setting.The Moscow Law (2010) explicitly established (a) the right of parents or guardians of children with disabilities to choose a general or special educational school (Moscow Law No. 16, 2010, Article 4) and (b) special accommodations for children with disabilities have to be created in general education schools (Article 5). In the current Federal Law (2012, Article 44), the right to choose a school is only maintained under certain conditions. Parents cannot formally choose special education

232 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

schools because this type of school is not included in the new legislation (Federal Law, 2012, Article 23). Parents can only de facto choose separate special education schools or special classes within general schools if they exist in the region and are recommended by a Psychological, Medical, and Pedagogical Commission (Federal Law, 2012,Article 44; Ministry of Education, Order No. 1082, 2013). In the current Federal Law of Education, a student with a disability is defined as a “person having a lack in physical and/or psychological development, ascer­ tained by a Psychological, Medical and Pedagogical Commission and prevented from getting education without creating special accommodations” (Federal Law, 2012, Article 2). Consequently, a student with a disability has a right to receive special educational accommodations if these accommodations are recommended to her/him by a Psychological, Medical, and Pedagogical Commission (Federal Law, 2012, Article 42). Teachers are required to take students’ special needs and students’ state of health into consideration to apply for special accommodations and to communicate, if necessary, with medical organizations (Federal Law, 2012, Article 48). The new legislation established that students who cannot attend a school because of their health conditions may learn at home or in a hospital, if they are placed in it for an extended period of time, with the help of the teachers of a general education school (Federal Law, 2012, Article 41). Homebound instruction is not the same as “family learning”: Homebound is ensured by schoolteachers if the child is a student in a school, while “family learning” is ensured by parents if the child is not a student of any school. Based on 2012 data, Kulagina (2015) reported that: In Moscow, the proportion of children with disabilities studying at home is 16%, whereas on average in Russia 28.6% (about 63.3 thousand students). While in the capital, most students receive instruction in general education programs of the general type (about 80%), in Russia as a whole, the propor­ tion of such children is significantly lower (59.3%). In the country, about 40% of SWD (or 25.8 thousand) studying at home, receiving instruction accord­ ing to a program of a special school. In the capital, this figure is half as much, about 19.5%. (Kulagina, 2015, p. 96) In short, there are disparities in special education programs, especially in spe­ cial schools, between Moscow and other regions. If the number of special (reme­ dial) schools was significantly larger in regions, there would be no necessity to use homebound education to substitute for the lack of special education schools in regional Russia. Unfortunately, in many regions, homebound instruction is used to pull out SWD from schools rather than ensure appropriate and effective edu­ cation in schools. Therefore, Kulagina (2015) noted that the homebound option sometimes reflects insufficient resources of the regions rather than the incapacity of SWD to attend a school.

The impact of Article 24

233

Tensions in the implementation of the CRPD The initial report of the Russian Federation (2014) included information regarding the fundamental principles that guaranteed the lack of discrimination regarding PWD and the equality of their rights to education, according to Federal Law (2012), where the notion of inclusive education was officially adopted (CRPD Commit­ tee, 2015d). This initial report also contained information regarding the number of SWD in educational settings in Russia. As of 2014, 467,000 SWD had received special education. Of those, 146,790 (31.4%) were taught in “mainstream classes under the inclusive education system,” while 210,194 (45%) followed “an adapted study program with a considerable inclusive element,” and 110,192 (23.6%) were taught in special (remedial) schools (CRPD Committee, 2015d, para. 274). The total of the proportion of SWD attending inclusive educational establishments was 76.4%; for remedial schools, it was 23.6%, as a percentage of the SWD population, which showed a broad translation of the concept of an inclusive education system in the CRPD by the Russian authorities (CRPD Committee, 2015d, para. 274, p. 44). In the list of issues (LOIs) of the CRPD Committee (2017a), special attention was directed toward the legal safeguards and services provided for SWD in terms of quality inclusive education and information regarding the standards for adapted general educational programs (CRPD Committee, 2017a). In its replies, the Rus­ sian Federation’s authorities stated that, as of the 2016–2017 academic year, the number of SWD enrolled in inclusive education was 71,210, which was 15.1% higher than in 2015.There were 9,339 “inclusive schools” representing 21% of the total number of general education schools, up from 2.5% in 2011.The number of secondary vocational schools practicing inclusive education increased by 12% since 2014, from 1,494 to 1,675.The number of students with SEN in inclusive educa­ tion at institutions of higher education increased by 30%, in comparison to 2014, and there were some 24,000 SWD or SEN as of 2016–2017. Finally, the number of institutions of higher education providing remote learning services increased by 36.8% since 2014 (CRPD Committee, 2017b). The Russian Federation also stated that special state standards for teaching SWD would be entered into force on September 1, 2016, including for students with intellectual disabilities. These standards included the teaching skills required to work with various groups of students such as those with autism,ADHD, and other special educational needs. To date, the special state standards concern the SWD in primary schools (Russian Federation, Ministry of Education Order No. 1598, 2014) and the students with intellectual disabilities (Russian Federation, Ministry of Education Order No. 1599, 2014), whereas the State standards for secondary schools contain parts concerning the SWD (Russian Federation, Ministry of Edu­ cation Order No. 413, 2012). In its COs, the CRPD Committee (2018) raised three issues: (a) The existence of special education in separate nonmainstream settings; the Committee named it “segregated education,” although these settings are willingly chosen by parents,

234 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

(b) “the lack of transparent financial resources allocated and mechanisms estab­ lished to ensure equal conditions and support for all persons with all types of impairment in general education, as guaranteed by federal legislation” (para. 28), and (c) “regional disparities due to the varied conditions and availability of finan­ cial resources in different regions” (para. 28). In addition, the CRPD Committee put pressure on Russia to ratify the Optional Protocol, which includes the obli­ gation of a state party to consider individual complaints concerning violations of the rights of PWD and allow the Committee to investigate, report on, and make recommendations on “grave or systematic violations” of the CRPD (CRPD Committee, 2018, paras. 5–6). Since the first concern of the Committee regards the so called “segregated edu­ cation,” we can anticipate in which direction the probable concerns about viola­ tions of the PWD rights on education will go. It will likely be concerns regarding separate special education schools or units. Nonetheless, it is doubtful whether the full abolition of separate special education settings will benefit the quality educa­ tion of all SWD, especially in sparsely populated areas and low-income regions with underfunded education.

Academic debate In Russia, inclusive education is discussed by the public media and by scholars and teachers’ communities in conjunction with the general topic of the education of SWD, and it is frequently considered as a possible alternative to special education. However, the inclusive education of migrant children and gifted children is also sometimes discussed in this context. Concerning the issue with the quality of edu­ cation for SWD, the advantages of special education are obvious for most teachers in both general and special education, given that the readiness of general schools for teaching of SWD is rather low (Alekhina, Agafonova, & Alekseeva, 2011; Ale­ khina, 2016; Kulagina, 2014).The promotion of an inclusive culture in school and society is a particularly debatable topic (Starovojt, 2016). Many teachers and some parents consider inclusive culture as the main advantage of inclusive education. In this context, the issue of the education quality is either not raised, or it is raised in terms of applying special education methods only within inclusive settings.Although the situation has recently begun to change, it is noteworthy that little attention has been directed toward teaching frameworks such as co-teaching, universal design for learning (UDL), or differentiated instruction. There are two polar perspectives on education quality in conjunction with inclusive education.The first was clearly expressed by Vladimir I. Lubovsky (2017), who was a professor at Moscow State University of Psychology and Education. He suggested that the key principle of pedagogy is the achievement of the high­ est possible result that is attainable for a learner under individualized support in the education process. Lubovsky considered the inappropriateness of conditions in general classrooms to meet the special learning needs of many SWD. He argued that the learning needs of students with cognitive and mental disabilities are due to

The impact of Article 24

235

exceptional developmental patterns in relation to neural, cognitive, and/or psycho­ logical dysfunctional networks (e.g., working memory deficits, sustained attention problems, executive functions deficits). A general classroom cannot always provide those students what they most need for successful learning, and the general educa­ tion teachers neither typically focus on them nor are trained in special education strategies and methods.Thus, Lubovsky (2017) suggested that quality education for certain students with special learning needs is unattainable in the typical general classroom and only special education can ensure the most appropriate individual­ ized support. In contrast, Elena V. Samsonova (2017), at Moscow State University of Psychol­ ogy and Education, suggested that inclusive education does not mean a placement of SWD in mainstream setting without any special accommodation, but it requires individual support in this setting. She suggested that inclusive education highlights the problems of the current general education, such as inadequate differentiation of funding for the education of SWD, which leads to misidentification of children. Samsonova claimed that the successful implementation of inclusive education will meliorate the quality of general education including differential funding per stu­ dent and that the remuneration of the teacher should correspond to the quality of education, not the quantity of students in the classroom. In addition, the general classrooms should be regulated by differentiated content, methods, and assessment system, taking the diversity of students into account. She argued that the inclusive education is based on the principles of participation and the value of diversity and is also compatible with the need for reforming general education (Samsonova, 2017). Consequently, Lubovsky and Samsonova’s arguments clearly reside in dissimi­ lar perspectives.Whereas Lubovsky discusses today’s realities of general and special education, Samsonova rather speaks about an ideal possible future based on general education reforming because today’s realities of inclusive education do not ensure the factors she considers.

Implications for students with disabilities in Russia Anastasiou et al. (2018) noted that the content of Article 24 of the CRPD is charac­ terized both by the predominance of the anti-discrimination paradigm over a socio­ economic justice approach and by a certain ambiguity in the anti-discrimination approach. Ambiguity and inconsistency appeared in several clauses, such as those regarding “reasonable accommodation” and “individual support.” Here, one could assume the de facto significance of a special educational needs approach. We note some consequences of the ambiguities and inconsistencies of Article 24 for Russian education. On the one hand, introducing the inclusive education concept and providing adapted educational programs across the Russian Federa­ tion increased the possibility of choosing an inclusive setting for a child with a disability. On the other hand, inadequate staffing, insufficient per student funding, and the performance criteria for the students do not take the laboriousness of teaching children with disabilities into consideration. In some regions, the quality

236 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

of education has deteriorated for many PWD. This is attributed to the reduction in the number of special education settings, the small number of specialists in gen­ eral education schools (teachers, special educators, psychologists, speech therapists, etc.), and reductions in the staff for both specialized and medical care for students (Kulagina, 2015). The uncertain status of special education in Article 24 has influenced the uncer­ tainty in the criteria for the fulfillment of the right to education in the Russian Federation. Kulagina (2015) noted that “from 2012/2013 to 2013/2014 . . . the number of students in special schools was increased by 1,246 persons, but the num­ ber of teachers in special schools was decreased by 1,192” (Kulagina, 2015, p. 98). She also reported that: As of 2006/2007, in schools for children with severe speech disorders, one specialist observed 56.6 students, but as of 2013/2014 this rate increased to 228.8 students. In schools for students with blindness, the number of students per medical specialist (physician) increased from 107 to 257, in schools for students with visual impairments, they increased from 72.8 to 198 people, and in schools for deaf people, they increased from 38.5 to 142.3. (Kulagina, 2015, p. 100) Schools with special education programs or units in large complex educational settings must accept students with more severe impairments than they accepted earlier, before the adoption of the new federal legislation.This is because the absence of free places in a school is the only reason to refuse the attendance of a child with a disability (Federal Law, 2012, Article 67). Nonetheless, the number of qualified special educators for teaching these students is not adequate. Kulagina (2019) investigated the regional disparities concerning special edu­ cation. She noted that the decentralization of the special education bound with the transition of its financial support from a federal center to the regions dete­ riorated the access of SWD to specialized education support. Kulagina reported that regional differences in the proportion of children with disabilities in special (remedial) schools were 11-fold, whereas they were 76-fold in general schools. She investigated factors of these regional disparities and found that there were two main factors that worsened the special education quality in regions concerning the density of population and urbanization: The first was that the greater the density, the better the special education; the second was that urban settings provide better quality education in comparison with rural areas (Kulagina, 2019). In the COs of the CRPD Committee (2018), the equality of opportunities and placement of SWD in general education prevails in importance over meeting the special educational needs of PWD. In essence, the Committee recommends to Russia that they fully abolish all special education settings and provide general education without explicitly establishing the necessity of support by special educa­ tion teachers. There are two interrelated reasons for doubting that such a recom­ mendation will have a positive effect for SWD; the first is that some SWD cannot

The impact of Article 24

237

receive quality education in general settings corresponding to their needs, especially without specially designed instruction and a continuum of special education set­ tings (Lubovsky, 2017).The second is that there is unlikely to be sufficient qualified general education teachers and special education teachers to ensure quality educa­ tion for SWD, especially in the rural general schools of Russian regions with a low population density.

4. The Netherlands Legal context and influence of Article 24 in the Netherlands Although the CRPD was signed by the Netherlands on March 30, 2007, it was not ratified until June 14, 2016, and entered into force on July 14, 2016. In the past, the Netherlands has been familiar with a differentiated system of special educa­ tion services and facilities for students with various special educational needs. At the same time, the use of such services and facilities has increased over the years. The discussion about what is best for students’ development in combination with the continuous attempt of the Dutch government to reduce the growth of special education and the associated costs has historically led to substantial changes in edu­ cational laws and policies (Bakker, Noordman, & Rietveld-Van Wingerden, 2006). These changes instigated a move toward more inclusive education. On August 1, 2014, the Appropriate Education Act was instated (Ministry of Edu­ cation, Culture, and Science, 2011), introducing the “education-that-fits” system, which aims to offer appropriate education for every child regardless of his/her (special) educational needs. Although the Appropriate Education Act has a goal of increasing the number of students in general education, separate special education settings are still available for students who need very specialized education and care (CRPD Committee, 2019; Inspectorate of Education, 2019). In practice, the introduction of the Appropriate Education Act implied that the national criteria that determined categorical eligibility for special education ser­ vices depending on diagnostic labels (e.g., visual and hearing impairments, speech and language impairments, cognitive impairments, chronic illnesses, social-emotional and behavioral problems, and/or psychiatric disorders) disappeared. In addition, the funding of special needs services was changed. Before the law went into effect, the Netherlands had a so-called open-ended financing system. Each learner who met national criteria for being eligible for special education services received a “pupil­ bound budget.” SWD and their parents had the right to choose a school—general education or separate specialized facility—and they took part in deciding on how the funds would be used to meet the student’s special needs. With the Appropri­ ate Education Act, budgets for special education services were regionally secured, based on the total number of students in that particular region regardless of their possible special educational needs. Regional “education-that-fits” partnerships of general and special schools became responsible for organizing additional support and distributing the financial means for students with cognitive impairments or

238 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

chronic illnesses and students with social-emotional and behavior problems and/or psychiatric disorders (Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science, 2011). Only for students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, and/or speech/language impairments, who comprise relatively small groups, are special education services currently organized nationally.

Consequences for students with disabilities in the Netherlands From research evaluating the implementation of the Appropriate Education Act, it has become clear that the number of students in separate special education facili­ ties decreased (e.g., Inspectorate of Education, 2017; Ledoux & Waslander, 2019). The percentage of students transitioning back from these special education facilities into general education without additional support, however, has consistently been low over the years (Inspectorate of Education, 2017, 2018; Zweers, 2018). More recently, the percentage of students in specialized facilities for special education has increased again, up to 2.1%—similar to the percentage in 2013, before the Appropri­ ate Education Act went into effect (Inspectorate of Education, 2018, 2019; Ledoux & Waslander, 2019). The consequences for specific groups of SWD do vary.An approximately stable 75% of the students with visual impairments are included in mainstream education in which they receive extra support (e.g., learning Braille) from established institu­ tions, and only 25% receive education in specialized facilities (Bartiméus | Konin­ klijke Visio, 2012). The individuals involved—students themselves, their teachers, parents, (school) psychologists, and special education teachers—did not perceive many changes resulting from the new law and generally are satisfied with the special education services they are provided (Smeets & De Boer, 2018). For students with hearing impairments and speech/language impairments, prior to the Appropriate Education Act schools and parents were felt to be more flexible and to have more decisional power in what special education services were provided. Now, light, medium, and intensive “arrangements of special education services” are available, and independent committees establish which arrangement is provided. This decision-making process of the independent committees is not always clear for parents (Inspectorate of Education, 2019). Furthermore, perceptions are mixed on whether students experience well-being in school and achieve according to their potential (Smeets & De Boer, 2018). Although “education-that-fits” partnerships, school boards, and (school) psy­ chologists positively report on increased flexibility and decision power to design tailor-made special education services for students with cognitive impairments or chronic illnesses and students with social-emotional and behavior problems and/ or psychiatric disorders, the legislation changes have led to large variations in the provision of special education services between schools (Ledoux & Waslander, 2019). It is impossible to examine whether students receive adequate educational support (Ledoux & Waslander, 2019). Teachers generally report that the provided educational support does not suffice—neither for the student nor for the teacher

The impact of Article 24

239

(Algemene Onderwijsbond (AOB), 2019; Ledoux, 2017). Furthermore, recent research suggests that students who receive special education services in special­ ized facilities are better socially embedded and perform better academically than comparable students included in general education (Zweers,Tick, Bijstra, & Van de Schoot, 2019). A student group that has received special attention with the implementation of the Appropriate Education Act consists of students who (temporarily) stop attending school and stay at home.The Dutch State Report claims that tailor-made solutions for these students have been improved in the period 2015–2017 (CRPD Commit­ tee, 2019).Yet, the number of students who refuse to go to school for a period of three months or longer is increasing instead of decreasing (Ledoux & Waslander, 2019).This increase is partly attributed to better registration but may also indicate that school anxiety and refusal are still pressing issues in education (Inspectorate of Education, 2017, 2018, 2019; Ledoux & Waslander, 2019).

Social and political debate The freedom for national and regional “education-that-fits” partnerships to organ­ ize additional support and distribute the financial means for student groups with various disabilities results in large variations between regions, institutions, and even individual schools and lack of transparency in the possibilities for additional support and tailor-made solutions (Inspectorate of Education, 2018; Ledoux & Waslander, 2019). For parents and students, and sometimes even for teachers, it is unclear in what situations additional supports are available, what budget is available, and whether a school’s support services are sufficient to meet the student’s needs. Some parents experience limited collaborative decisional power, but others are reasonably satisfied with the special education services that are provided for their children (Ledoux, 2017; Ledoux & Waslander, 2019). Teachers are also ambivalent in their perceptions of the implementation of the Appropriate Education Act.They generally think positively about including SWD in general education in the neighborhood, yet they also report an increasing work­ load as a consequence of the new law (AOB, 2019; Smeets, Ledoux, & Van LoonDikkers, 2019). Teachers report that the number of SWD in their classrooms, the severity of their problems, and the burden of administration and additional consults and meetings have increased.They feel that they (and their schools) lack expertise to fulfill the needs of some specific student groups, such as students with cognitive or physical impairments, and that teacher training programs insufficiently prepare them for daily practice in the “education-that-fits” system (AOB, 2019; Ledoux, 2017). Consequently, teachers generally feel insufficiently capable of living up to the high expectations of parents and other individuals involved to adequately teach and support all students in their classrooms (AOB, 2019; Ledoux, 2017; Ledoux & Waslander, 2019). The social and political debate on the implementation of the Appropriate Educa­ tion Act is also influenced by the media, which generally have presented the matter

240 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

from a critical perspective in which they predominantly discuss what the imple­ mentation of the law means for the daily life of SWD and their parents. In the first years after its implementation, much attention was focused on students who refuse to go to school and SWD in general education (Ledoux, 2017; Ledoux & Waslander, 2019;Waslander, 2017). More recently, the media have focused more attention on teachers and their complaints about the implementation of the “education-that­ fits” system (Ledoux, 2017; Ledoux, Smeets, & Weijers, 2019;Waslander, 2017).

The “Unlimited Participation” program The Ministry of Health,Welfare, and Sport (2018) has launched the program “unlim­ ited participation” in 2018—based on the CRPD promises.A separate action plan is devoted to the domain of education.The government stated that it has three goals: First, to describe and reduce the obstacles that students face in terms of accessibility and the realization of inclusive education; second, to explore what inclusive education would look like in reality; and third, to improve the connection between education and care. Traditionally, youth care systems have supported SWD in their socialemotional and personal development, providing related services such as (cognitive) behavior therapy, family therapy, etc. in institutions separate from schools. Academic areas such as reading, spelling, math, etc. for SWD are addressed within schools. To realize the first two goals, the government has announced that it will start a dialogue about more inclusive education in the education sector—including schools, educa­ tional partnerships, youth care, parents, and students. In addition, the government will subsidize initiatives of special and general schools that are temporarily cooperating to provide integrated education for students with and without disabilities.

A final note on the “education-that-fits” system The general social perception is that the Appropriate Education Act aims to reduce the number of referrals to special education and to keep as many SWD as possible in inclusive mainstream education—regardless of the intensity of their SEN. This has resulted in public concern (Ledoux, 2017). The Act and its “education-that­ fits” system, however, are not aimed at realizing full inclusion. Instead, the point of departure is this: Mainstream where possible, but special placement when necessary (CRPD Committee, 2019; Ledoux, 2017). In theory, students with various dis­ abilities have the option of attending general schools with a specialized facility for special education (CRPD Committee, 2019), but general schools often are still not sufficiently equipped to accommodate students with some specific disabilities who, therefore, attend separate special schools.

Concluding remarks The four country cases reveal differences in CRPD implementation. In all of them, either the ratification of the CRPD (Germany, Portugal, and Russia) or the prospect

The impact of Article 24

241

of its ratification (the Netherlands) has led to significant changes in domestic legis­ lation. It seems that national sovereignty with respect to disability policy has eroded. Typically, the CRPD Committee tries to impose classroom inclusion as a govern­ ing ideology, feeling that it is the only value in the education of students with disabilities. This attitude shapes domestic education policy by radically restructur­ ing, shrinking, or eliminating special education settings and impeding states parties from considering other values and principles such as optimum learning, preparation for life, and the welfare of the child. Even domestic legislation clearly inspired by inclusive values, seen in the Portuguese case, have been repealed in the name of compliance with the new spirit of nearly full inclusion under the pressure of the CRPD Committee in cooperation with the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. It seems that the Netherlands, with its more balanced policy “mainstream where possible, special placement when necessary,” has a greater degree of freedom in domestic policy for its SWD, perhaps because it has not yet received the COs. Constructive concepts, such an inclusive education system, seen in all four countries; a multilevel system of support, seen in Portugal; and inclusive culture, seen in Russia, have lost their broad systemic characteristics, and, instead, they have been weaponized against special education settings. This strategy misrepresents the nature of mindrelated disabilities, which are deeply intertwined with neural learning networks. It also underestimates the challenges and complexities of teaching children with cog­ nitive, emotional/behavioral, and learning disabilities (Anastasiou et al., 2018).Thus, surprising (to some) findings from a study revealed the relative ineffectiveness of inclusive settings for students with social/emotional/behavioral difficulties (SEBD), compared to separate special education settings in the Netherlands (Zweers et al., 2019). Such findings can be understood only when we consider these complexities. A national deregulation of special education services provided to SWD in the Netherlands, other than students with visual impairments and hearing impairments, may create regional disparities and a lack of procedural transparency. Russia also faces large regional disparities that inclusion policies have not overcome. Almost fully inclusive policies have serious implications for the profession of the special educator. For example, special education teachers have been used as substitute teachers for absent general education teachers in Germany. In Portugal, support teachers have an unclear role at the third level of “additional measures” in the newly established three-level system of supports. In the Netherlands, a teacher’s administrative and indirect non-teaching loads have increased.The teaching exper­ tise and specialization of special educators may decline sharply under such unfa­ vorable conditions for their development. The failures of inclusion policies seen in Germany and Russia have been used as arguments for more aggressive policies toward full inclusion.The frequently heard argument that the failure of existing inclusive education is due to traditional special education’s absorbing money and resources is unfounded, as seen in the experience of the German Saarland state. Even in states with high inclusion rates, an inclusive policy can be underfinanced. In the public sphere, with different social interests and

242 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

priorities, the allocation of scarce resources in the public budget results in fierce competition and is swayed by austerity and neoliberal policies. Consequently, the concept of an isolated clash for resources between inclusive and special education in a social policy void is fallacious. Inclusion and specially designed instruction that meets the exceptional needs of SWD (special education) are not competitive goals. Rather, the existence of relatively higher percentages of SWD calls upon states to act and tend to create a well-developed continuum of services that offers more opportunities for an appropriate education that matches the students’ differ­ ent special needs.A non-disability-names policy may convey the message to the public that there is no urgent reason for action and support.The Mexican Nobel laureate Octavio Paz, with his ravishing poetic style, wrote: “We live among names; what is without names is still nonexistent” (cited in Vázquez, 2009, p. 101). Repression of identification names, as seen in Portuguese decree-law, may inadvertently lead to the evaporation of the right to education for students with mind-related dis­ abilities.This decline may signal a complete return to the distant past, where only sensory and orthopedic impairments were recognized. This return would mean the isolation and/or functional exclusion of students with mind-related disabilities in general classrooms; a paradoxical form of exclusion from learning by “inclusion,” that is, the physical presence of a student with a mind-related disability in a general classroom without adequate and/or substantive learning considerations.This would be a sort of superficial inclusion or what Kauffman and Badar (2020) called habeas corpus inclusion in the first chapter of this book.

References Ahrbeck, B., Felder, M., & Schneiders, K. (2018). Lessons from educational reform in Ger­ many: One school may not fit all. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 21(2), 22–33. Ahrbeck, B., Fickler-Stang, U., Friedrich, S., & Weiland, K. (2015). Befragung der Elternvertre­ terinnen und Elternvertreter zur Umsetzung der Inklusion in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Forschun­ gsbericht. Eine Studie im Auftrag der FDP-Fraktion im Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [A survey of parents’ representatives on the implementation of inclusion in North-Rhine-West­ phalia. Research Report. A Study Commissioned by the FDP Faction in the Parliament of North-Rhine-Westphalia]. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Aktion Mensch. (2019). Studie zu schulischer Inklusion [Study about school inclusion]. Author. Alekhina, S.V. (2016). Inclusive education: From policy to practice. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 21(1), 136–145. Alekhina, S.V., Agafonova, E. L., & Alekseeva, M. N. (2011). Preparedness of teachers as the main factor of success of the inclusive process in education. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 1, 83–92. Algemene Onderwijsbond (AOB). (2019). Enquête vijf jaar passend onderwijs [Survey five years of “education-that-fits”]. Utrecht: Author. Retrieved from www.aob.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2019/06/Enquête-vijf-jaar-passend-onderwijs_web-1.pdf Anastasiou, D. (2018). Politics and science in the RTI time: On the classification and iden­ tification of learning disabilities. In P. C. Pullen & M. M. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention and multi-tiered systems of support (pp. 40–62). New York, NY: Routledge.

The impact of Article 24

243

Anastasiou, D., Gregory, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2018). Article 24: Education. In I. Bantekas, M. A. Stein, & D. Anastasiou (Eds.), The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabili­ ties: A commentary (pp. 656–704). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2018). Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Wirkungen und Erträgen von Bildung in Deutschland 2018: Ein indika­ torengestützter bericht mit einer analyse zu wirkungen und erträgen von bildung [Education in Germany 2018: Indicator-based report with an analysis about effects and benefits of education]. Bielefeld: WBV. Bakker, N., Noordman, J., & Rietveld-Van Wingerden, M. (2006). Speciaal onderwijs [Special education]. In N. Bakker, J. Noordman, & M. Rietveld-Van Wingerden (Eds.), Vijf eeuwen opvoeden in Nederland (pp. 543–584).Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum, BV. Bartiméus | Koninklijke Visio. (2012). Passend Onderwijs voor leerlingen met een visuele beperking [“Education-that-fits” for students with visual impairments]. Retrieved from www.visio.org/ visio.org/media/Visio/Downloads/Folders-en-brochures/VIVIS-passend-onderwijs.pdf Breyton, R. (2018a, February 5). Bekomme jede Woche Mails von Lehrern, die sich überfordert fühlen. Interview mit Heinz-Peter Meidinger [I get mails from teachers every week who feel over­ whelmed. Interview with Heinz-Peter Meidinger]. Die Welt. Breyton, R. (2018b, March 23). Das Comeback der Förderschule [The comeback of special schools]. Die Welt. Buhr, H. (2017). Die Inklusionspraxis im Saaarland ist ein einziges Trauerspiel. Interview mit Dr. Hansgünter Lang [The inclusion praxis in the Saarland is a complete tragedy. Inter­ view with Dr. Hansgünter Lang]. Lehrer und Schule heute, 9(7), 258–263. Correia, L. M. (2008). Inclusão e necessidades educativas especiais: Um guia para educadores e profes­ sores (2nd ed.). Porto: Porto Editora. Correia, L. M. (2017a). Fundamentos da educação especial: um guia para educadores e professores. Braga: Flora Editora. Correia, L. M. (2017b). Alteração ao Decreto-Lei n.° 3/2008, de 7 de janeiro: Parecer. Correia, L. M. (2018). Educação inclusiva e educação especial: sim ao bom senso, não ao extremismo. In L. M. Correia (Ed.), Educação Inclusiva e Necessidades Especiais (pp. 11–34). Braga, Portugal: Flora Editora. Council of Europe. (2006). Recommendation Rec (2006)5 by the Committee of Ministers to the member states on the Council of Europe action plan to promote the rights and full participation of disabled people in society: Improving the quality of life of disabled people in Europe 2006–2015. Author. CRPD Committee. (2015a, May 13). Concluding observations on the initial report of Germany (Un Doc CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1). CRPD Committee. (2015b). Draft general comment No. 4 Article 24. Author. Retrieved from www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GCRightEducation.aspx CRPD Committee. (2015c, October 1). List of issues in relation to the initial report of Portugal (CRPD/C/PRT/Q/1). United Nations. CRPD Committee. (2015d, September 9). Initial report submitted by the Russian Federation (Un Doc CRPD/C/RUS/1). CRPD Committee. (2016a, September 2). General comment No. 4 on the right to inclusive educa­ tion (UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/4). CRPD Committee. (2016b, May 20). Concluding observations on the initial report of Portugal (UN Doc CRPD/C/PRT/CO/1). CRPD Committee. (2017a, October 20). List of issues in relation to the initial report of the Rus­ sian Federation (CRPD/C/RUS/Q/1). United Nations. CRPD Committee. (2017b, November 23). Replies of the Russian Federation to the list of issues (UN Doc CRPD/C/RUS/Q/1/Add.1).

244 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

CRPD Committee. (2018, April 9). Concluding observations on the initial report of the Russian Federation (UN Doc CPRD/C/RUS/CO/1). CRPD Committee. (2019, March 6). Initial report of the Netherlands (UN Doc CRPD/C/ NLD/1). Dannenbeck, C., & Bretländer, B. (2018). Editorial. Gemeinsam Leben [Living Together], 4, 202–204. Deutscher Lehrerverband. (2018). DL begrüßt bessere Ergebnisse benachteiligter Schüler, befürchtet Rückschläge, falls nicht gegengesteuert wird [German Teachers Association welcomes better results for disadvantaged students but worries backlashes will occur in the absence of changes]. Author. Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte (DIM). (2019). Pressemitteilung. Menschenrechtsinstitut fordert “Pakt für inklusive Bildung” [Human Rights Institute demands “Pact for inclusive educa­ tion”]. Bildungsklick. Döhner, S., & Berger, M. B. (2019, February 21). Inklusion in der bisherigen Form ist in Nieder­ sachsen gescheitert [Inclusion in its current form failed in Niedersachesen]. Hannoverische Allge­ meine Zeitung. EASNIE.(n.d.).Innovative new inclusive education law for Portugal’s schools.Retrieved from www. european-agency.org/news/innovative-new-inclusive-education-law-portugals-schools Ellger-Rüttgardt, S. L. (2016). Inklusion: Vision und Wirklichkeit [Inclusion: Vision and reality]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE). (2018). 2016 dataset cross-country report. Odense, Denmark: EASNIE. Felder, M., & Schneiders, K. (2016). Inklusion kontrovers: Herausforderungen für die Soziale Arbeit [Inclusion controversy: Challenges for social work]. Schwalbach Ts: Wochenschau-Verlag. Felder, M., & Schneiders, K. (2018). Inklusion—Kindeswohl oder Kindeswohlgefährdung? (Inclusion—Welfare of the child or its endangerment?). Kinder- und Jugendschutz in Wis­ senschaft und Praxis, KJug, 3, 79–83. Forsa Politik- und Sozialforschung GmbH. (2015). Inklusion an Schulen aus Sicht der Lehre­ rinnen und Lehrer ‒ Meinungen, Einstellungen und Erfahrungen [Inclusion in schools from the perspective of teachers: Opinions, attitudes and experiences]. Author. Forsa Politik-und Sozialforschung GmbH. (2019). Inklusion an Schulen aus Sicht der Lehrkräfte in Baden-Wuerttemberg—Meinungen, Einstellungen und Erfahrungen Ergebnisse einer repräsenta­ tiven Lehrerbefragung [Inclusion in schools in Baden-Wuerttemberg from the perspective of teachers: Opinions, attitudes and experiences]. Author. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. German Statement. (2016). German Statement concerning the draft General Comment on Article 24 CRPD. Germany. Gordon, J. S. (2013). Is inclusive education a human right? The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41, 754–767. Hillenbrand, C. (2013). Inklusive Bildung in der Schule: Probleme und Perspektiven für die Bildungsberichterstattung. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 64, 359–369. Hillenbrand, C. (2016). Inklusion und Lehrerbildung. Der Auftrag inklusiver Lehrerbildung. Empirische Befunde und Konsequenzen für die Lehrerbildung [Inclusion and teacher training.The mandate of inclusive teacher training. Empirical findings and consequences for teacher training]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsverwaltung, 32, 23–27. Himmelrath, A. (2017, May 15). Bildungspolitik in NRW. Sechs, setzen! [Educational policy in NRW: Failed!]. Der Spiegel. Hinz, A. (2009). Inklusive Pädagogik in der Schule—veränderter Orientierungsrahmen für die schulische Sonderpädagogik!? Oder doch deren Ende? [Inclusive education in

The impact of Article 24

245

schools;A changed framework for special education? Or its end?]. Zeitschrift für Heilpäda­ gogik, 60, 171–179. Hinz, A. (2011). Unbelegte Behauptungen und uralte Klischees—oder: Krisensymptome in der Heilpädagogik. Teilhabe, 50, 119–122. Inspectorate of Education. (2017). Onderwijsverslag 2015–2016. De staat van het onderwijs [Education report 2015–2016: Educational state of affairs]. Utrecht,The Netherlands: Minis­ try of Education, Culture, and Science. Inspectorate of Education. (2018). Onderwijsverslag 2016–2017. De staat van het onderwijs [Education report 2016–2017: Educational state of affairs]. Utrecht,The Netherlands: Minis­ try of Education, Culture, and Science. Inspectorate of Education. (2019). De staat van het onderwijs 2019 [Educational state of affairs 2019]. Utrecht,The Netherlands: Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science. Jennessen, S., & Wagner, M. (2012). Alles so schön bunt hier!? Grundlegendes und Spezifis­ ches zur Inklusion aus sonderpädagogischer Perspektive [Everything nice and colorful here!? Fundamental and specific ideas about inclusion from a special education perspec­ tive]. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 63, 335–344. Kauffman, J. M., & Anastasiou, D. (2018). Nomear e manter: Dois requisitos básicos para uma educação especial viável e vibrante [Naming and maintaining: Two basic requirements for viable and vibrant special education]. In L. M. Correia (Ed.), Educação Inclusiva & Necessidades Educacionais Especiais [Inclusive education and special needs] (pp. 35–54). Braga, Portugal: Flora Editora. Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2020). Definitions and other issues. In M. Kauffman (Ed.), On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues, and international perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Kauffman, J. M., Felder, M., Ahrbeck, B., Badar, J., & Schneiders, K. (2018). Inclusion of all students in general education? International appeal for a more temperate approach to inclusion. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 21(2), 1–10. Kavale, K., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeir, R., & LeFever, G. (2008). Response-to-Intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning dis­ ability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135–150. KMK. (2018). Sonderpädagogische Förderung in Schulen 2007 bis 2016 [Special Needs Education in Germany 2007–2016] (Dokumentation 214).Author. KMK. (2019). Datensammlung Sonderpädagogische Förderung in allgemeinen Schulen ohne Förder­ schulen 2017/2018 [Data on special needs education in the general education system without special schools] (Korrekturfassung vom 15.04.2019 - Letzte Änderung: Aufnahme einer Fußnote). Author. Kulagina, Е. V. (2014). Obrazovanie detej-invalidov i detej s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami zdorov’ya: Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskiy aspect [Schooling of disabled children and children with special educational needs: Socio-economic aspects]. Sovet po voprosam upravleniya i razvitiya [Council on issues of management and development], Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Social and Economic Studies of Population. Moscow: Delovye i yuridich­ eskie uslugi “LeksServis”. Kulagina, Е.V. (2015). Obrazovanie detej-invalidov i detej s ogranichennymi vozmozhnosty­ ami zdorov’ya: Tendencii i kriterii regulirovaniya [Schooling of disabled children and children with special educational needs:Tendencies and criteria for regulation]. Sotsiolog­ icheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies], 9, 94–101. Kulagina, E.V. (2019). Spetsialnoye obrazovaniye detey s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami zdorovya: regionalnoye neravenstvo [Special education for children with restricted health abilities: Regional inequality factors]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies], 3, 49–62.

246 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

Ledoux, G. (2017). Stand van zaken Evaluatie Passend Onderwijs. Deel 3:Wat betekent passend onderwijs tot nu toe voor leraren en ouders? [State of affairs evaluation appropriate education act. Part 3: What consequences does the “education-that-fits” system have for teachers and parents?] (Rapport 975, projectnummer 20689.05).Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut. Ledoux, G., Smeets, E., & Weijers, D. (2019). Monitor scholen. Passend onderwijs in het pri­ mair, voortgezet en special onderwijs [Monitor schools:The “education-that-fits” system in primary, secondary, and special education] (Rapport 1028, projectnummer 20689.14). Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut. Ledoux, G., & Waslander, S. (2019). Stand van zaken Evaluatie Passend Onderwijs. Deel 5:Tus­ senstand [State of affairs Evaluation Appropriate Education Act. Part 5: Interim report] (Rapport 1027, projectnummer 20689).Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut. Lubovsky,V. I. (2017). Inklyuziya—tupikovyy put dlya obucheniya detey s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami [Inclusion—A developmental dead end for the education of disabled children]. Sovremennoye doshkolnoye obrazovaniye.Teoriya i praktika [Preschool Education Today. Theory and Practice], 2, 32–37. Moscow Law No. 16 (2010,April 28). On the education of persons with disabilities in the City of Moscow. City of Moscow. Netherlands, Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science. (2011). Notitie Naar Passend Onder­ wijs [Report to suitable education]. The Hague:Author. Netherlands, Ministry of Health,Welfare and Sport. (2018). Programma VN-verdrag Onbeperkt meedoen! Implementatie VN-verdrag inzake de rechten van mensen met een handicap [UN conven­ tion program- Unlimited participation! Implementation of the UN CRPD].The Hague:Author. News4teachers. (2016, March 9). Menschenrechts-Beauftragter kritisiert die Entwicklung der Inklusion in Deutschland als “klar konventionswidrig” [Human Rights Monitor­ ing Council criticizes the development of inclusion in Germany as “clearly against the Convention”]. Nöldeke, T. (2018). Inklusion: Ganz oder gar nicht:Wie wir das gemeinsame Lernen retten können [Inclusion:All or nothing: How we can rescue it]. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Politik gegen Aussonderung-Koalition für Integration und Inklusion eV. (2016). Gegen­ statement zur gemeinsamen Stellungnahme von Bund und Ländern unter Mitwirkung der Kul­ tusministerkonferenz (KMK) an das Büro des Hochkommissars für Menschenrechte in Genf vom 15.1.2016 [Response to the German Statement to the Bureau of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Geneva, January 15, 2016]. Portugal, Decreto-Lei [Decree-Law] No. 46. (1986, October 14). Diário da República n.° 237/1986, Série I (Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo). Lisboa:Assembleia da República. Portugal, Decreto-Lei [Decree-Law] No. 3. (2008, January 7). Diário da República No 4/2008, Série I (154–164). Lisboa: Presidência do Conselho de Ministros. Portugal, Decreto-Lei [Decree-Law] No. 54. (2018, July 6). Diário da República n.° 129/2018, Série I (2918–2928). Lisboa: Presidência do Conselho de Ministros. Retrieved from www. dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/EEspecial/dl_54_2018_en_version.pdf Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 3266-1. (1992, July 10). Education act: On education. Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 273-FZ. (2012, December 29). On education in the Russian Federation. Russian Federation, Ministry of Education Order No. 413. (2012, May 17). On approval of special state standards for secondary general education. Russian Federation, Ministry of Education, Order No. 1082. (2013, September 20). On approval of the regulations on a psychological, medical and pedagogical commission. Russian Federation, Ministry of Education, Order No. 1598. (2014a, December 19). On approval of special state standards for learning of children with disabilities in primary school. Russian Federation, Ministry of Education Order No. 1599. (2014b, December 19). On approval of special state standards for learning of children with intellectual disability.

The impact of Article 24

247

Samsonova, E.V. (2017). Inklyuziya—strategiya vykhoda iz tupika dlya sovremennoy sistemy obrazovaniya [Inclusion:A strategy for breaking the deadlock in the modern educational system]. Sovremennoye Doshkolnoye Obrazovaniye. Teoriya i Praktika [Preschool Education Today.Theory and Practice], 5, 55–63. Schmoll, H. (2018). Zurück zur Förderschule? [Back to special schools?]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Schumann, B. (2016). Deutschland legt sich quer. Bund und Länder widersprechen der Auslegung von inklusiver Bildung durch den UN-Fachausschuss [Federal and state governments disagree with the view of inclusive education by the CRPD Committee]. GEW. Smeets, E., & De Boer,A. (2018). Onderwijs aan leerlingen met visuele, auditieve of communicatieve problematiek [Education for students with visual, auditory, or communication problems] (Pub­ lication No. 38). Nijmegen, Groningen: KBA Nijmegen, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Department of Pedagogical Sciences. Smeets, E., Ledoux, G., & Van Loon-Dikkers, L. (2019). Passend onderwijs op school en in de klas. Tweede meting in het basisonderwijs en voortgezet onderwijs [The “education-that-fits” system in the school and in the classroom. Second measurement in primary and secondary education] (Publi­ cation No. 56). Nijmegen,Amsterdam: KBA Nijmegen, Kohnstamm Instituut. Speck, O. (2016).Was ist ein inklusives Schulsystem? [What is an inclusive educational sys­ tem?]. Vierteljahresschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete, 85, 185–195. Starovojt, N.V. (2016). Inklyuzivnaya kul’tura obrazovatel’noj organizacii: podhody k poni­ maniyu i formirovaniyu [Inclusive culture of educational setting: Approaches to under­ standing and forming]. Nauchno-metodicheskij elektronnyj zhurnal “Koncept” [Concept], 8, 31–35. Statista. (2019). Anzahl der Förderschulen in Deutschland [Number of special needs schools in Ger­ many]. Retrieved from https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/235854/umfrage/ foerderschulen-in-deutschland/ Steude, V. (2019). Grundschullehrer schlagen Alarm. Viel zu wenige Grundschulkinder in Bochum erhalten sonderpädagogische Unterstützung [Elementary school teachers in Bochum are alarmed: Not enough children receive special education services]. Stadtspiegel Bochum. Sundermann, S. (2017a). Wo es an Bremer Schulen hakt. Die Baustellen der Inklusion [Problems with schools in Bremen: Implementation of inclusion]. Retrieved from www.weser-kurier.de/ bremen/bremen-stadt_artikel,-die-baustellen-der-inklusion-_arid,1608393.html Sundermann, S. (2017b). Weniger Förderzentren in Bremen [Fewer special education resource cent­ ers in Bremen]. Retrieved from www.weser-kurier.de/bremen/bremen-stadt_artikel,­ Weniger-Foerderzentren-in-Bremen-_arid,1540347.html Tepe, M. (2017). Inklusionsstrategie für jedes Bundesland diskutieren [Inclusion strategies for each state need to be discussed]. GEW. Thamm, J., Albers, S., Flott-Tönjes, U., Ludwig, M., Storcks-Kemming, B., & Witt, H. (2019). Duale Planungskompetenz versus Primat der Fachlichkeit—Reduktion auf einen “fachlichen Unterstützungsbedarf ”? [Dual planning competency versus school subject priority—Only “professional subject support”?]. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 4, 194–204. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Author. Vázquez, R. (2009). On visual modernity and poetic critique, between Octavio Paz and Walter Benjamin. In O. Kozlarek (Ed.), Octavio Paz: Humanism and critique (pp. 99–110). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript. Verband Sonderpädagogik, e.V. (2017). Positionspapier: Bildung und Erziehung bei komplexen Entwicklungsstörungen und hohem Exklusionsrisiko [Position paper: Education and training of children with developmental disorders and high risk for exclusion]. Retrieved from www. verband-sonderpaedagogik.de/positionen/standards.html Waslander, S. (2017). Passend onderwijs in pers en politiek [The “education-that-fits” system in media and politics] (Publication No. 22).Tilburg:TIAS School for Business and Society.

248 Dimitris Anastasiou et al.

Zeit online. (2018). Lehrergewerkschaft fordert Aussetzung der Inklusion [Union requests memoran­ dum on inclusion] February 5th, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/ schule/2018-02/deutscher-lehrerverband-forderung-inklusion-aussetzung-regelschulen Zweers, I. (2018). “Shape sorting” students for special education services? A study on placement choices and social-emotional and academic functioning of students with SEBD in inclusive and exclusive settings (Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Netherlands). Zweers, I., Tick, N. T., Bijstra, J. O., & Van de Schoot, R. (2019). How do included and excluded students with SEBD function socially and academically after 1, 5 year of special education services? European Journal of Developmental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17405629 .2019.1590193

12

LIKELY LEGACIES OF THE

INCLUSION MOVEMENT

James M. Kauffman, Daniel P. Hallahan, Timothy J. Landrum, and Carl R. Smith

Trying to predict what is going to happen in education or any other aspect of life is something of a fool’s gambit. The risk of making such predictions is that the prediction will look foolish or naïve before long, if not immediately (Kauffman, Mattison, & Gregory, in press). Perhaps we need to remember a statement attributed to the late Burton Blatt, that an important goal for all of us should be not to fear appearing foolish. Nevertheless, we make guesses about what the consequences of the inclusion movement might be. Our discussion includes speculation about out­ comes that we think are quite improbable as well as those we think are more likely. Our guesses about lower and higher probabilities might reveal a tendency to be pessimistic, for the legacies we think are lower in probability are those we also believe would be better and those we think are higher in probability are those we believe would be most disadvantageous to exceptional children in schools.We make the guesses we do in the light of trends we see in public education, but we know we might be wrong. Contrary to our thinking, things could turn out very differ­ ently, and our pessimism could be proven totally unjustified. Our judgments could be those of nostalgic curmudgeons who fail to see the brightness of the future.That is, we could be seeing a glorious future through badly smudged lenses that dim the glow of what lies ahead or occlude the real picture altogether. Whatever we may see in the future, the history of special education clearly shows that it did not suddenly appear. Special education was developed as part of a slow process of social and scientific changes over a period of centuries.The role of advocacy, particularly that advanced by families working with concerned profes­ sionals, should not be forgotten.The process included the gradual and increasingly humane treatment of people with disabilities. It required recognizing the nature of various exceptionalities and naming them. Without names, phenomena are sim­ ply unknown or ignored (Kauffman & Anastasiou, 2018). Effective advocacy also involved the development of public education systems that eventually included not

250 James M. Kauffman et al.

just the most able students but the typical and ultimately the least able students. Perhaps special education in some sense reached its peak of development in the 1970s with the passage of Public Law 94–142 (PL 94–142), the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975 (see Martin, 2013;Yell, Katsiyannis, & Bradley, 2017). However, research and development of special education have con­ tinued to date. Arguments can be made for the continued improvement of educa­ tion, including the education of exceptional children, and some will contend that bodily full inclusion is among those improvements. We surmise that special education’s devolution and demise—if it is abandoned— will not be quick or portrayed by everyone as a loss (see Kauffman, 1999–2000). In our view, the devolution of special education began shortly after PL 94–142 was passed. It likely began in the mid-1980s, first with calls for special education and general education to be merged into a single system, ignoring the fact that special education was already organized as a specific aspect of general education. Goodlad (1990) had previously explained why teacher education should not and could not be fully integrated into or merged with a university’s structure, such that teacher education was something all university administrators and all faculty were responsible for. Goodlad (1990) argued that under such a plan, teacher education would die an ignominious death. What advocates of merging special and general education (e.g., Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1984) seemed to be arguing, however, was that PL 94–142 gave special education too much special focus, separate identity, budgetary control, and administrative authority—too much of the very things Goodlad himself (e.g., Goodlad, 1990) recognized were essential for teacher education to exist and thrive in the context of a university (see Kauff­ man & Hallahan, 1993). Special education may be radically changed or even eliminated by many small changes over a period of decades, none of which by itself is sufficient to be a coup de grace.The demise of special education could well be a gradual process of dimin­ ishing separateness, visibility, focus, and authority in the general education system until it (special education) disappears. One particular example of this was a proposal made during 2001 that pitched the elimination of certain populations from special education, such as students with emotional or behavioral disorders (Horn & Tynan, 2001). Most of the changes might be considered damning special education with faint praise, praising the stuff of special education while saying that good stuff is better done as part of general education. Special education’s disappearance will be touted as new and better ways of responding to the differences we call disabilities or other exceptionalities. It is a logical consequence of the idea that special education can “work itself out of business” by turning over to general education the interven­ tions it has developed (e.g., see Deno, 1970). A metaphor for most social movements, including special education, is the tide. In most places, the tide comes in and goes out rather slowly, such that over a short period of time its movement may be imperceptible (we know that in a few loca­ tions, tides are very fast).Waves and wakes tend to disguise its movement, making it difficult or even impossible for the short-time observer to tell, in most locations, its

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

251

coming in from its going out, its change of direction.Where the analogy to watery tides breaks down is that the tides of bodies of water are inevitable, things we can­ not prevent. Fortunately, however, social tides can be changed.They are not inexo­ rable, and they are seldom suddenly changed by law, as was the case with creation and abandonment of the prohibition of alcoholic drinks (and, even in cases such as prohibition and its abandonment, social tides were building before the law was passed and repealed). Changing a social tide requires not only a general agreement among social leaders about what is happening and why but also tenacious dedica­ tion to stemming it. The drift of public opinion is not easily or quickly changed (except under the most extraordinary political circumstances), regardless of the evidence supporting the need for or danger of change. Another apropos metaphor for special education’s future is climate change, which may be comparatively fast or slow (i.e., in comparison to past changes). Seldom are changes in climate sudden; changes in weather frequently are. Changes in climate tend to be very gradual, particularly in comparison to the typical human lifespan, and are obscured by weather. Climate change may occur for a variety of reasons, but taking action to halt or reverse it requires, first, recognition that it is occurring. Second, the climate’s change can be hastened or slowed by what we humans do. Its inexorable course becomes more difficult to alter the longer we only dither about its course and fail to take action to counter it. Our speculation about legacies of educational inclusion can be interpreted using the metaphors of tides and climates. Others have used such metaphors (e.g., see Oliver, 2000; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009).We base our guesses on our perception of what might be called special education’s tide and the climate of professional and public opinion. It is tempting to believe special education’s tide is coming in, but as we observe the history of special education and current devel­ opments, we think it is more likely going out.We think part of the receding tide is the gradual diminution of special instruction provided by special educators and the assumption that general educators will take responsibility for providing that special instruction. Although a variety of histories of special education and related movements are available, we especially recommend the work of Gerber (2017) and Martin (2013). Trends in special education and requirements for its viability have been noted pre­ viously (e.g., Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2019; Kauffman, Anastasiou, & Maag, 2017; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1993; Kauffman, Hallahan, Pullen, & Badar, 2018; Maag, Kauffman, & Simpson, 2019).We first discuss the legacies we think are less likely, then those we think are more likely.

Lower probability legacies Inclusion could come to be implemented as the proprium instructio—appropriate instruction—defined in the first chapter. After a period of overemphasis on place­ ment (habeas corpus inclusion; see Chapter 1) as the most important aspect of spe­ cial education, policy makers might figure out that place is less important than the

252 James M. Kauffman et al.

effective instruction of exceptional children, that we do not know how to provide the best instruction for all children in a single kind of place, and that many but not all children can be taught effectively in the environment that is considered general education. That is, the most important thing in special education could eventually be con­ sidered getting instruction right for the individual, recognizing that this should be provided in general education when most appropriate but not insisting that such instruction is always possible or appropriate in general education. It would put bod­ ily placement—habeas corpus inclusion—in its place. Placement’s proper place could come to be viewed as secondary, considered less important than instruction and something to be determined only after appropriate instruction is defined. Place­ ment could be admittedly something to be altered in the light of evidence that appropriate instruction is or is not feasible in general education.The value of a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP) could be resoundingly affirmed. The tide of special education could be turned without its total restructuring, redefini­ tion, reconceptualization, abandonment, or transformation as suggested by such advocates of radical reform to full inclusion as Sailor (e.g., Sailor, 2009; Sailor & McCart, 2014; SWIFT Schools, 2019) and Oliver (2000). Scientific evidence and logical, linear thinking rather than an alternative philo­ sophical assertion or ideology could be reaffirmed as the basis for decision making in special education. Instruction itself could become the primary focus of care­ ful, empirical research. Speculation about the best instructional practices and the constraints of particular environments on instruction could be made the objective of research based on scientific evidence, such that teaching in special education is based more firmly on replicable evidence. We think these “coulds” are actually “shoulds” because they are most advanta­ geous for exceptional children. Furthermore, if these things are the legacy of the push for inclusion, then perhaps special education’s tide is coming in. Unfortu­ nately, the observations still apply that in education, including special education, science and the data do not matter much, if at all (see Landrum, 1997, 2015; State, Simonsen, Hirn, & Wills, 2018). Scientific evidence still seems, at the time of this writing, to play a minimal role in education, including the training of far too many special education teachers (Landrum & Tankersley, 2004; State et al., 2018).

Higher probability legacies Much of what we and authors of other chapters in this book have been discuss­ ing can be characterized as the diminution of special education—dispersing it into general education, making it less visible, reframing and renaming it to be something all general educators are expected to do, diminishing its independence and clarity of focus.We believe a much more likely legacy of the current inclusion movement is such gradual defining of special education down, a whittling away of what special education means and does, such that its role and importance are intended eventu­ ally to disappear altogether. If things like those we discuss in following paragraphs

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

253

occur, then we might have further reason to believe special education is headed toward its low tide. That special education’s demise is the objective of some reformers is hardly questionable. By analogy, some hope special education not only reaches its low tide but that its tide never comes in again.They may conclude that it is now out­ dated (see Freedberg & Harrington, 2017), an unfortunate, embarrassing, fact of the past—something akin to legal slavery in the United States, to which abolitionists were implacably opposed. For example, in his keynote address at an international conference, Oliver (2000) recommended a postmodern analysis of special educa­ tion (associated with the social model of disabilities and the disability studies view of special education).As part of his assessment he stated: My critique of special education and subsequent calls for its abolition have not been based upon direct personal experience. I never attended a special school as a pupil though many of my friends did and I have heard them talk bitterly about their experiences. My own experience came initially when I taught, or more accurately attempted to teach, young offenders to read and write and subsequently when as a lecturer in special educational needs I visited numerous special and ordinary schools who were attempting to meet special educational needs. Finally I served as a member of the Fish Committee which reviewed special needs provision in Inner London in the 1980s. During this time I met many committed and dedicated professionals and many contented children. I make these points in order to separate out my attitude to and experience of special education. While my experiences, in many instances were positive, I was and remain implacably opposed to the very existence of special education. (Oliver, 2000, pp. 5–6) In a tribute to Oliver, Slee (2019) another advocate of full bodily inclusion (see Slee, 2018), stated: “Mike declared in his keynote [Oliver, 2000] that he was there to ‘dance on the grave of special education.’” Perhaps Oliver’s comment about dancing on special education’s grave was ad lib. Although Oliver (2000) makes very clear his belief that special education should not exist (see above quotation), his written comments do not include anything about boogying or pirouetting on special education’s grave. Another example of some reformers’ animus toward spe­ cial education practice outside general education:“I recommend operating schoolwide RTI [response to intervention or instruction] models without having any separate special education classrooms” (Sailor, 2009, p. 123). Since the 1980s and what was called the “regular education initiative” (REI), separate special education (i.e., any place other than the general education classroom) has been increasingly denigrated (e.g., Agran et al., 2020; Gartner & Lipsky, 1989; Laski, 1991; Lipsky & Gartner, 1987). Sailor and McCart (2014) described what they considered stars being in align­ ment (i.e., the coming together of forces) for the support of full inclusion. Perhaps

254 James M. Kauffman et al.

they are increasingly in alignment, as indicated by the Trump administration’s reported proposal to change the definition or implementation of least restrictive environment (LRE): IDEA states that students with disabilities should be taught alongside chil­ dren without disabilities to the “maximum extent appropriate.” Advocates said they are worried that the Trump administration is looking to change the law’s presumption that “all children with disabilities will be educated in the general education classroom; except in the rare circumstance that the student cannot get a satisfactory education in that environment even with supple­ mentary aids and services.” (Diament, 2019) Diament goes on to report the shock of a coalition of advocates that such change in the definition of LRE has been considered and the firm opposition of the coali­ tion to such change. If the proposed change is to allow states and local educators to determine the LRE, that would certainly allow them the freedom to eliminate all options for placement other than general education. In our opinion, such change should come as no shock to those who have supported projects such as SWIFT schools that are based on the idea of full inclusion with no alternative placements or, at best, no options between total inclusion and total exclusion. Nor should it come as a shock to those who have bought into the notion expressed many years ago by Reynolds (1974) that “The boundaries between regular and special educa­ tion are eroding” (p. 1).The Trump administration’s interpretation of the federal law does at least include the occasional exception to general education. Federal law, but especially state laws, could be written to preclude any exception. Some have characterized much of what we are seeing as the “neutralization” of special education (Heward & Silvestri, 2005; Silvestri & Heward, 2016). In the neutralized version depicted by Heward and Silvestri, special education teachers eschew the use of evidence-based, explicit, systematic instruction in favor of ideo­ logically driven constructivist practices in which teachers are portrayed as facilita­ tors rather than instruments of change (see also Heward, 2003). Special educators are “neutralized” (made ineffective or irrelevant) in that they are not responsible themselves for the direct instruction of exceptional children or are partly responsi­ ble for the instruction of all children.

The diminution of special education: a slow death foreshadowed Kauffman and colleagues have likened the dwindling status of special education to “creeping normality,” which refers to “the way a major change can be accepted as a normal situation if it happens slowly, through unnoticeable increments of change. The change could otherwise be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step or short period” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normality).

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

255

We suggest that in the case of special education, law and practice have, over time, gradually but significantly ceded its role in educating students with disabilities to general education. Evidence for this abounds in previous chapters of this volume and other literature of special education, some of which has been reviewed in other places (e.g., Hallahan & Kauffman, 1995; Kauffman, 1989; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1993, 2005; Kauffman et al., 2017; Kauffman,Ward, & Badar, 2016). Kauffman et al. (2019) have noted several important changes in law and profes­ sional literature contributing to the diminution of special education’s role in the education of students with disabilities. Many of these have been in the form of policy positions taken by the federal government or professional organizations (see chapter 10). Here we shall mention just a few such instances: A policy paper pub­ lished in 1982 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the regular education initiative (REI) of the 1980s, the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Dis­ abilities Education Act (IDEA), and myths about special education and its unification with general public education.

NAS’s “Placing children in special education: a strategy for equity” The NAS report focused on what it claimed were unreliable identification prac­ tices (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). It asserted that (a) students categorized as educable mentally retarded (EMR; mildly intellectually disabled using today’s terminology), learning disabled (LD), and those receiving compensatory education exhibit indistinguishable educational needs and (b) wide variability exists from state to state in the prevalence of students identified for special education as EMR, LD, or emotionally disturbed (ED). Given the evidence available at the time (up to early 1980s), perhaps there was sufficient basis to question the validity of considering EMR, LD, and ED as sepa­ rate categories (cf., Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977). However, it is important to point out that research conducted since then has seriously contested these assertions. Researchers have found that the behavioral characteristics of mildly intellectually disabled, LD, and ED children are substantially different in many ways (Sabornie, Evans, & Cullinan, 2006; Sabornie, Cullinan, Osborne, & Brock, 2005).And studies of state-to-state prevalence variability have documented that LD is the least vari­ able of all the categories of special education; furthermore, the interstate prevalence variability for each of the high incidence categories (LD, intellectual disabilities, and ED) is less than for those in low incidence, more physically related categories (e.g., visual impairment, physical disabilities, traumatic brain injury) (Hallahan, Keller, & Ball, 1986; Hallahan et al., 2007).

The Regular Education Initiative The origin of REI is commonly attributed to the 1986 article by Madeleine Will, then the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

256 James M. Kauffman et al.

Services, US Department of Education: “Educating children with learning prob­ lems:A shared responsibility.”Although Will, herself, did not call for an end to spe­ cial education or suggest that it be subsumed under general education, many REI proponents recommended that special and general education be merged into one system (e.g., Stainback & Stainback, 1984; see also Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993; Lloyd, Repp, & Singh, 1991). At its extreme, REI stands for the folding in of special edu­ cation under the auspices of general education. Regardless of the exact positioning of special and general education, the REI movement had the effect of diminishing special education’s identity, visibility, and authority (Kauffman, 1999–2000; Kauff­ man & Hallahan, 1993). The REI and proposals for merging special and general education also had their early critics (e.g., Lieberman, 1990; Mesinger, 1985). Other papers usually associated with the REI “movement” (e.g., Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987;Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1986) reiterated the concerns of Heller et al. (1982) regarding the validity of categorizing students as learning dis­ abled versus intellectually disabled versus emotionally disturbed. Some proponents of the REI also criticized separate settings for students with disabilities as “driven by the fallacy that poor school adjustment and performance are attributable solely to characteristics of the student rather than to the quality of the learning environ­ ment” (Wang et al., 1986, p. 26).

The 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act The amendments to the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA placed a heavy emphasis on access to the general education curriculum for students identified for special education. For example, they stated that the students’ individual education pro­ grams (IEPs) must include the ways in which students will be engaged in the general curriculum, including goals for meeting their needs so that they can pro­ gress in the general curriculum. Unfortunately, the amendments have often been misinterpreted to mean that the special education student must literally follow the general education curriculum. For example, a policy paper by the Council for Chief State School Officers (2019) has asserted “that every student with a disability is, first and foremost, a general education student” (p. 3). In fact, the amendments state clearly that the IEP is to include ways that the student will access the general education curriculum as much as is reasonable (Yell, Crockett, Shriner, & Rozalski, 2017). However, Fuchs et al. (2014) found that receiving specialized instruction in a separate setting was considerably more effective than exposure to teaching of the general education curriculum in an inclusionary setting.

Myths about special education and its unification with general public education Among the many myths about special education is the idea that what can be taught in one place can be taught in any place (see Kauffman & Pullen, 1996; Kauffman,

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

257

Schumaker, Badar, & Hallenbeck, 2018). Nevertheless, this myth persists and will likely contribute to special education’s slow death.Another is that special education is rooted in antiquated ideas about children with disabilities and how to assure their appropriate education (e.g., Freedberg & Harrington, 2017). Some ideas, including some about education, are timeless. For example, the idea that the problem of spe­ cial education is how best to deal with variability among students has not changed and will never change (see Horn, 1924). The ideas of free and appropriate public education of all students with disabili­ ties, a full continuum of alternative placements, individualized education programs, and least restrictive environment are embodied in the P. L. 94–142 (now the IDEA). These ideas are not outmoded.They have not changed and will not change. Nevertheless, rhetoric and policies related to these ideas can change and have changed.The myth is that the changes in rhetoric and policy change the nature of the problem and the best responses to it.

Changes, legacies, and responses to them The accumulation of small changes in rhetoric and policy regarding special educa­ tion that make it less important, including emphasis on placing exceptional chil­ dren in general education, appear to be leading toward a special education that is virtually unrecognizable by those who devised it, drew policies governing it, and practiced it in the final decades of the 20th century (Maag et al., 2019). Emphasis on bodily inclusion, rather than special instruction, has tended to decrease special education’s specialness, its difference from general education (Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). The time for reconstruction of special education on the basis of scientific evidence and logical thinking may have arrived (Kauffman et al., 2017). The reconstruction we believe is needed is not that envisioned by reformers who promote the social model of disabilities, view special education as an idea of mod­ ernism that will be replaced by postmodernism, see special education as a problem that is solvable by disability studies, or think that special education is rooted in outdated ideas. The changes we hope will be made include (a) the unequivocal embrace of scientific evidence as the best basis for special education; (b) the explicit rejection of constructivist, postmodern views that devalue or deny objectivity and scientific evidence (views that have become particularly popular in the social sci­ ences and are known by a variety of labels, expressed most obviously in the “dis­ ability studies” literature); and (c) reaffirmation of the enduring value and current relevance of the basic principles spelled out in PL 94–142.

Legacies and specialization A possible legacy of the movement toward full habeas corpus inclusion that began in the 1980s is the transformation, at some future date, of general public educa­ tion such that all public schools and all general education teachers recognize their responsibility and ability to teach all children regardless of any disability the student

258 James M. Kauffman et al.

may have.This would, indeed, be an unfortunate legacy. In our estimation, it makes approximately the same degree of sense as the following: 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

All drivers will be licensed to drive all vehicles, with no special training or licensure to drive any trucks, buses, heavy equipment, or other vehicles not airborne. All pilots will be expected to fly all airplanes for all purposes, regardless of number or type of engine(s), size, or purpose. All builders will be licensed to construct all types of buildings. All physicians will be licensed to perform all medical treatments, including examinations, prescriptions, surgeries, and other medical procedures. All hospitals will be open to all patients, and all patients will be placed in gen­ eral medical units regardless of medical condition or diagnosis. All soldiers will be expected to operate all weapons of defense and be trained to accomplish all missions. All lawyers will be expected to handle all cases involving law, regardless of the nature of the case. All teachers will be prepared to teach all subjects at all levels and to coach all sports. All dentists will provide all dental services and procedures, including extrac­ tions, orthodontia, and dental implants.

Such a list of absurd statements could be vastly expanded.The nine listed are rec­ ognized immediately by most people as illogical. Although these examples may be considered hypothetical, it should be pointed out that the Iowa Professional Teach­ ing Practices Commission proposed, in 2014, to establish a single special educa­ tion endorsement that would be applied to all levels of instruction (K-12), all levels of severity, and all disability conditions. A similar proposal put forward for a single endorsement in general education that would qualify an individual to teach anything from early childhood education to high school physics would be considered laugh­ ably outrageous! That is because, in the examples given, we understand the need for specialization in training and practice or work. Why, we might ask, would anyone familiar with teaching and schools believe no specialization in training or practice is required to teach children with disabilities, simply because good teaching is good teaching? True, some of the same things are required in all cases; there are, indeed, core competencies required for the competent practice of teaching, regardless of the student.There are, also, core competencies required for driving, flying, building, practicing medicine, operating a hospital, serving in the armed forces, practicing law or dentistry, and many other endeavors. We realize that in each of these the practitioner cannot be expected, should not be expected, is not by law or consensus expected to be competent in all areas of specialization. We need not belabor the points that specialization is important in every profession, that special training is critical for competent practice of that specialization, or that people get really good at doing something by applying their special training over and over as a specialist.

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

259

That teaching special education is considered by the Iowa commission’s proposal so nonspecialized that a single endorsement or certificate is sufficient is, in our opinion, laughably outrageous. Such a proposal is not only unconscionable but reveals the devaluation of what special educators do and what students with disabilities deserve. We hope the legacy of the habeas corpus inclusion movement will not be the assumption that students with disabilities are best served by nonspecialists, that the general is appropriate and sufficient, that it is more important to be included in general education than to be singled out as needing something special. The trope “all children are special” deserves another:“Some are more special than others.”

Legacies and the general education context Another aspect of delivering special education in the general education context is related to the maintenance of general education’s purpose. General education teachers are under increasing pressure to prepare their students for high-stakes testing.They have a finite amount of time, attention, and energy to devote to the task of meeting the expectations of school administrators and other public officials. They are likely to be judged by the extent to which their students meet state stand­ ards of achievement as revealed by tests. Suggesting that teaching children with dis­ abilities is not a significant addition to general education teachers’ responsibilities is, to put it mildly, uninformed and unrealistic (e.g., see Gerber & Semmel, 1985).We might say the same about supposing that working collaboratively in their classroom with a special education teacher imposes no additional demands on general educa­ tors’ time, attention, and energy. Besides the instructional demands on general educators, there is the issue of disrup­ tive behavior, particularly the problem of managing the behavior of students identified as having emotional and behavioral disabilities. Think about this in relation to the protections afforded to students with disabilities regarding areas such as suspension and expulsion, contrasted with those protections provided for students without disabilities. The old saw that if the most disruptive student is removed from the class, then another student becomes the most disruptive is about as insightful as saying that if the shortest child is removed from a group, then another becomes shortest.The fact is that teaching general education well, at any level, is extremely taxing.Very demanding, disruptive students, some of whom are students with disabilities, add significantly to the difficulty of teaching general education.We hope that a legacy of the movement toward habeas corpus inclusion will not be the assumption that general education teachers should and can assume additional responsibilities or that we may safely assume that, if teaching students with disabilities increases the com­ plexity and difficulty of their task, then such increases are justified.

Legacies: policies, rhetoric, social roles, and extremism Policies can be changed for a variety of reasons, and educational inclusion policy is no exception. Bodily inclusion could be mandated for all cases of educational

260 James M. Kauffman et al.

disability to conform to the belief that fair treatment of students with disabilities demands, in all cases, their integration into the mainstream of general education. Such belief may give rhetorical advantage to the proponents of full inclusion in group decision making. Furthermore, those with rhetorical advantage may pre­ sent their views with great confidence (Sunstein, 2009), adding to their perceived credibility. Their confidence may play an important role in persuading others to embrace their point of view. Following Sunstein’s (2009) analysis of how extreme opinions are formed and strengthened, we suspect that a rhetorical advantage could contribute to the con­ struction of an extreme policy of excluding consideration of exceptions to the placement of students with disabilities in general education. That is, alternatives to general education may not even be considered. People with a more moder­ ate view—in this case, those seeing inclusion in general education classrooms as desirable but having limits that preclude it in some instances—may simply exclude themselves from participation in the deliberations of a group that will reach an extreme, foregone conclusion. Sunstein (2009) notes how a group of like-minded people can start with con­ cern, see that concern turn to outrage, and then become extreme in their beliefs and actions, sometimes engaging in contemptible behavior. Polarization and extremism can result in the downfall of a movement. People sometimes lose sight of the origi­ nal purpose of a movement, disappointing those who started it. Sunstein points out also how humans differ in countless ways, how accentuation of some particular differences can lead to polarization and extremism, and how the range and diversity of disabilities (e.g., blindness, deafness, cognitive impairment, mental illness, and a variety of other conditions and combinations of disabilities) have affected disabil­ ity rights movements. Social dynamics of various groups and their advocates have played a greater role in some disability rights movements than in others. Sunstein (2009) is also careful not to condemn all extreme positions. That is, some extremes are justified and good. For example, peaceful but extreme advocacy of liberty may be justified. However, when extremism becomes destructive, harm­ ful, and self-defeating, then it is to be avoided and opposed. Our concern is that in the case of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education, the most extreme advocates of what in the first chapter is called habeas corpus inclusion will become their own worst enemies and do avoidable harm to many children (Kauff­ man,Anastasiou, Badar, & Hallenbeck, in press).

Final comments The problems related to placement decisions in the education of SWD present a true dilemma—no choice without a downside, so choose your poison, the option having the lowest probability of negative outcomes. As far as we can determine, we see three possible choices in the education of SWD: (a) no federal legislation, leaving decisions to the states; (b) federal legislation such as that embodied in the EAHCA of 1975, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

261

(IDEIA or IDEA, 2004), which requires a CAP; and (c) federal legislation requiring placement of all SWD in general education.We know from experience that choice (a) is not a good one, that given their own preferences some states will ignore the needs of SWD (e.g., see Martin, 2013).The problems with choices (b) and (c) are that both, as is (a), are open to this simple truth: Anything that can be abused will be abused. That is, all of the choices of how to resolve the problem of placement of SWD are open to abuse, and abuse is a certainty with (c). If the choices being actively considered are (b) or (c), then the question we must consider is this:Which is a preferable choice because abuse is less probable, at least potentially avoidable? The answer is not entirely clear in the findings of research (see chapter 5) or in the often less-than-best efforts to make inclusion work (Palikarova, personal commu­ nication, 2019). In our opinion, option (c) is certain to lead to abuse in some cases, although that option has its defenders. Option (b), in our opinion, is less likely to result in abuse because people can be educated to make better choices of alternative environments (Kauffman,Anastasiou et al., in press). We are skeptical of the legacies of the full inclusion movement.Very likely, it will leave some residual benefits for students with disabilities, but we fear its lega­ cies may include neglect and denial of the appropriate education of many students. Our concern is that the positive legacies of the full inclusion movement will be far outweighed by its negative vestiges. Options at least allow the best choice among alternatives. One possible, positive legacy of movement toward greater inclusion of students with disabilities in general education is recognition of the complexity of the prob­ lem and the task.A common way of denigrating teaching is the trope,“Well, teach­ ing isn’t rocket science,” meaning that it isn’t very complicated by comparison. Actually, teaching isn’t rocket science; it’s more complicated. Furthermore, in the complexity of this task, the teacher’s judgment is still the best test we have of a student’s teachability or disability and educational needs (Gerber, 2005; Kauffman, Travers, & Badar, 2020). Teachers who take their task seriously understand the ignorance of someone who asks, “Who knew teaching could be so complicated?” Experienced, com­ petent teachers also understand how adding to the learning diversity of a group of students (not the group’s racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversities that do not determine learning) adds to the difficulty of effective instruction. As with virtu­ ally any task, some will claim that whatever activity (teaching, building, playing a musical instrument or sport, etc.) is easy—or claim to have a simple solution to the challenge of its mastery. For more than 45 years, some special education leaders have supported the fiction that general educators should be able, at least with help from special educators at their elbows, to teach all children without exception, including those with disabilities (e.g., Reynolds, 1974). In education, differentiation is often presented as an easy, or at least eminently doable, solution to teaching diverse groups. Inclusion of the most difficult stu­ dents in general education is sometimes presented as something all teachers worth their salt can accomplish with a little extra effort, a little help, and/or reasonable

262 James M. Kauffman et al.

determination. Aspersions are then cast on good general education teachers who say they can’t do it or can’t do it well. We hope that one legacy of the inclu­ sion movement in education will be better understanding of the complexities and demandingness of teaching.

References Agran, M., Jackson, S., Kurth, J., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., . . .Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1). Council of Chief State School Officers. (2019). Ensuring an equitable opportunity: Providing a high-quality education for students with disabilities. Washington, DC:Author. Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229– 237. doi:10.1177/001440297003700306 Diament, M. (2019, July 22). Trump administration cautioned against changing IDEA policy. Retrieved from www.disabilityscoop.com/2019/07/22/trump-administration­ cautioned-against-changing-idea-policy/26929/ Freedberg, L., & Harrington,T. (2017, October 11). Special education in “deep trouble” and still needs reform, says California ed board president. Retrieved from July 19, 2019, from https:// edsource.org/2017/california-education-board-president-says-special-ed-in-deep­ trouble-and-needs-reform/588436 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L.,Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., & Jordan, N. C. (2014). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge? Exceptional Children, 81, 134–157. Gartner,A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy. Gerber, M. M. (2005).Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strate­ gies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 516–524. Gerber, M. M. (2017).A history of special education. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge. Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1985). The microeconomics of referral and reintegra­ tion: A paradigm for evaluation of special education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11, 13–29. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. I., & Lovitt,T. C. (Eds.). (1993). Integrating general and special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill, Macmillan. Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1995). From mainstreaming to collaborative consultation. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive cri­ tique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 5–17).Austin,TX: PRO-ED. Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1977). Labels, categories, behaviors: ED, LD, EMR recon­ sidered. The Journal of Special Education, 11, 139–149. doi:10.1177/002246697701100202 Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2019). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hallahan, D. P., Keller, C. E., & Ball, D.W. (1986).A comparison of prevalence rate variability from state to state for each of the categories of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 7(2), 8–14. doi:10.1177/074193258600700204 Hallahan, D. P., Keller, C. E., Martinez, E. A., Byrd, E. S., Gelman, J. A., & Fan, X. (2007). How variable are interstate prevalence rates of learning disabilities and other special

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

263

education categories? A longitudinal comparison. Exceptional Children, 73, 136–147. doi:10.1177/001440290707300201 Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press. Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 186–205. doi:10.1177/002246690303600401 Heward, W. L., & Silvestri, S. M. (2005). The neutralization of special education. In J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J.A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies in developmental disabili­ ties: Fads, fashions, and science in professional practice (pp. 193–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Horn, J. L. (1924). The education of exceptional children: A consideration of public-school problems and policies in the field of differentiated education. New York, NY: Century. Horn,W. F., & Tynan, D. (2001).Time to make special education “special” again. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 23–51).Washington, DC:Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute. IDEIA. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004), often called IDEA, 2004. Kauffman, J. M. (1989). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. Journal of Special Education, 23, 256–278. doi:10.1177/002246698902300303 Kauffman, J. M. (1999–2000). The special education story: Obituary, accident report, con­ version experience, reincarnation, or none of the above? Exceptionality, 8(1), 61–71. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX0801_6 Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Felder, M., & Hallenbeck, B. A. (in press). Special education policy prospects: Lessons from social policies past. Exceptionality. Kauffman, J. M., & Anastasiou, D. (2018). Naming and maintaining:Two basic requirements for viable and vibrant education. In L. M. Correia (Ed.), Educacão inclusiva & necessidades especiais [Inclusive education and special needs] (pp. 35–54). Braga, Portugal: Flora Editora. Kauffman, J. M.,Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., & Hallenbeck, B.A. (in press). Becoming your own worst enemy: Converging paths. In C. Boyle, S. Mavropoulou, J. Anderson, & A. Page (Eds.), Inclusive education: Global issues & controversies. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Brill|Sense. Kauffman, J. M., Anastasiou, D., & Maag, J.W. (2017). Special education at the crossroad: An identity crisis and the need for a scientific reconstruction. Exceptionality, 25, 139–155. doi :10.1080/09362835.2016.1238380 Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1993).Toward a comprehensive delivery system for spe­ cial education. In J. I. Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and special education (pp. 73–102). Columbus, OH: Merrill, Macmillan. Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2005). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (2nd ed.).Austin,TX: Pro-Ed. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., & Pullen, P. C. (2019). Special education’s problem of creeping normality. Manuscript submitted for publication. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education:What it is and why we need it (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Kauffman, J. M., Mattison, R. E., & Gregory, M. (in press). Core values, technologies, neuro­ science, and law/policy: Next big things for emotional and behavioral disorders. In B. G. Cook, M.Tankersley, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 32). London: Emerald. Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. L. (1996). Eight myths about special education. Focus on Excep­ tional Children, 28(5), 1–12. doi:10.17161/fec.v28i5.6854

264 James M. Kauffman et al.

Kauffman, J. M., Schumaker, J., Badar, J., & Hallenbeck, B.A. (2018).Where special education goes to die. Exceptionality, 27, 149–166. doi:10.1080/09362835.2017.1414699 Kauffman, J. M.,Travers, J. C., & Badar, J. (2020).Why some students with severe disabilities are not placed in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1). doi:10.1177/1540796919893053 Kauffman, J. M., Ward, D. M., & Badar, J. (2016). The delusion of full inclusion. In R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 71–86). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Landrum, T. J. (1997). Why data don’t matter. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 123–129. doi:10.1023/A:1022880406691 Landrum,T. J. (2015). Science matters in special education. In B. Bateman, M.Tankersley, & J. Lloyd (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Personal perspectives (pp. 429–440). New York, NY: Routledge. Landrum, T. J., & Tankersley, M. T. (2004). Science in the schoolhouse: An uninvited guest. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 207–212. doi:10.1177/00222194040370030401 Laski, F. J. (1991). Achieving integration during the second revolution. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 409– 421). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Lieberman, L. (1990). REI: Revisited . . . again. Exceptional Children, 56, 561–562. Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner,A. (1987). Capable of achievement and worthy of respect: Education for handicapped students as if they were full-fledged human beings. Exceptional Children, 54, 69–74. Lloyd, J.W., Repp,A. C., & Singh, N. N. (Eds.). (1991). The regular education initiative:Alterna­ tive perspectives on concepts, issues, and methods. Dekalb, IL: Sycamore. Maag, J. W., Kauffman, J. M., & Simpson, R. L. (2019). The amalgamation of special edu­ cation? On practices and policies that may render it unrecognizable. Exceptionality, 27, 185–200. doi:10.1080/09362835.2018.1425624 Martin, E.W. (2013). Breakthrough: Federal special education legislation 1965–1981. Sarasota, FL: Bardolf. Mesinger, J. F. (1985). Commentary on “A rationale for the merger of special and regular education” or, is it now time for the lamb to like down with the lion? Exceptional Children, 51, 510–512. doi:10.1177/001440298505100608 Oliver, M. (2000, July). Decoupling education policy from the economy in late capitalist societies: Some implications for special education. Keynote address at the International Special Education Congress, Manchester. Palikarova, S. (2019, October). Personal communication via email. Reynolds, M. C. (1974, October 28). Educating exceptional children in regular classes. Conference Presentation, Leadership Training Institute, Chicago. Reynolds, M. C.,Wang, M. C.,&Walberg, H. J. (1987).The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398. doi:10.1177/001440298705300501 Sabornie, E. J., Cullinan, D., Osborne, S. S., & Brock, L. B. (2005). Intellectual, academic, and behavioral functioning of students with high-incidence disabilities: A cross-categorical meta analysis. Exceptional Children, 72, 47–63. doi:10.1177/001440290507200103 Sabornie, E. J., Evans, C., & Cullinan, D. (2006). Comparing characteristics of high-incidence disability groups: A descriptive review. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 95–104. doi:10 .1177/07419325060270020701 Sailor,W. S. (2009). Making RTI work: How smart schools are reforming education through schoolwide response-to-intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass and Wiley. Sailor, W. S., & McCart, A. B. (2014). Stars in alignment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 55–64. doi:10.1177/1540796914534622

Likely legacies of the inclusion movement

265

Silvestri, S. M., & Heward,W. L. (2016).The neutralization of special education, revisited. In R. M. Foxx & J.A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Slee, R. (2018). Inclusion isn’t dead, it just smells funny. New York, NY: Routledge. Slee, R. (2019). Michael Oliver, 1945–2019:A tribute. Retrieved from https://disability-studies. leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2019/03/Michael-Oliver-Tribute-2019.pdf Stainback,W., & Stainback, S. (1984).A rationale for the merger of special and regular educa­ tion. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111. doi:10.1177/001440298405100201 State, T. M., Simonsen, B., Hirn, R. G., & Wills, H. (2018). Bridging the research-to­ practice gap through effective professional development for teachers working with stu­ dents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, Online first, 1–10. doi:10.1177/0198742918816447 Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. SWIFT Schools. (2019, July 19). Retrieved from www.swiftschools.org Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Rethinking special education. Edu­ cational Leadership, 44(1), 26–31. Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems:A shared responsibility. Excep­ tional Children, 53, 411–415. doi:10.1177/001440298605200502 Yell, M. L., Crockett, J. B., Shriner, J. G., & Rozalski, M. (2017). Free appropriate public edu­ cation. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 71–86). New York, NY: Routledge. Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Bradley, M. R. (2017).The individuals with disabilities educa­ tion act:The evolution of special education law. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 55–70). New York, NY: Routledge. Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2017). General and special education are (and should be) differ­ ent. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 249–262). New York, NY:Taylor & Francis. Zigmond, N., Kloo,A., & Volonino,V. (2009).What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189–204. doi:10.1080/09362830903231986

INDEX

Page numbers in bold and italics indicate tables and figures, respectively. Page numbers followed by n indicate notes. ability grouping 186–187, 189, 190 abridgment of rights 13–14, 20 academic and behavioral difficulties 114–116 academic instruction 52, 53, 54, 56, 86; see also instruction achievement gaps 47, 89, 111 Adler 180 African Americans 137 Ahn, S.Y. 3 Alkin, M. C. 140, 151 American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) 208, 213 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 107, 208 Anastasiou, D. 225, 235 applied behavioral analysis (ABA) 88 Appropriate Education Act (Netherlands) 237–239 Archambault, F. X., Jr. 184 Aristotle 178, 179, 179 Article 24, impact on United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 216–242; Germany 217–224; Netherlands 237–240; Portugal 224–230; Russian Federation 230–237 Artiles,A. J. 137 assistive products/devices 227 Autism Society of America 207–208, 211–212

autism spectrum disorder (ASD) 17, 137, 141, 154 Ayres, K. M. 164 B. E. L. v Hawaii 38 Badar, J. 161 Bailey, D. B., Jr. 140, 151 Baker, J. M. 147, 168 Baker-Ericzén, M. J. 141 Bateman, B. D. 6 behavioral and academic difficulties 114–116 behavioral expectations, defined 95 behavioral performance and tiered system 91–92, 96 Bergan, J. 86 Beth B. v.Van Clay 39 bias: in disability identification and placement 109–110, 121–122, 149; racial 111; selection 57; social desirability 149 Blackman, H. P. 5 Blozowich, D. G. 185 Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley 32 Boelter, E.W. 172 Bovey, E. H. 141 Bradshaw, C. 92 Braille literacy 227 Brigham, F. J. 3 Browder, D. M. 140, 168

Index

267

Decree-Law No. 54 224–227 Deno, E. 197

Deutscher Lehrerverband (DLV)

(Germany) 220

C. D. v. Natick Public Schools 38–39

DeVries three-part test 37

Calculator, S. N. 171

DeVries v. Fairfax County School Board 37

Campbell, J. 141, 144, 150

Dewey, J. 181

Carlberg, C. 140, 150–151

Diament, L. 254

Carnine, D. 74

DIE ZEIT (magazine) 219

Carter, E.W. 141

differentiated instruction 49, 58, 185, 225,

Casey, R. J. 93

227, 234; see also instruction

Cihak, D. 154

DIM (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte)

Ci3T 88–90, 94–96, 98

219, 220

classrooms: general education, and

direct instruction 69–73, 77, 254; see also

disproportionality 120; inclusive

instruction

57–58, 99, 150, 177, 183, 185, 189,

disability: educational 13; identification of

219–220–222; management 19, 77–78,

8–9; specific learning disabilities (SLD)

99; strategies 187–189

86, 224

CLEAR Curriculum framework 188–189; disproportionality and inclusion 107–122;

see also education curriculum discussion 120–122; disproportionate

collaborative processes between general and representation of students of color

special education communities 100–101

108–110; hypotheses 112; inclusive

Colley,A. 3–4, 6

placement of SWD of color 110–111;

communication and social skills 2, 85, 86,

method 112–116; results 116, 118, 120

93, 95, 100, 167–169, 224

diversity 8, 25, 179, 213, 224, 230, 235

community-based organizations 207

Douglas, K. H. 164

Condition of Education (report) 48

dropping out of high school 50

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities

Duhon, G. J. 59

(CCD) 207–209

continuum of alternative placements (CAP) Dunn, L. M. 67–68 Durlak, J.A. 93

1, 6, 33, 47, 108, 161, 198, 200, 252

Convention on the Rights of Persons with educable mentally retarded (EMR) 255

Disabilities (CRPD) 11–12; see also education, aims of 178

Article 24, impact on United Nations educational environments 17, 29, 30,

(UN) Convention on the Rights of 39, 170

Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) educational inclusion 27–34; FAPE Cook, B. G 151

and LRE 31–33; mainstreaming and Cook, L. 57, 151

inclusion 29; presumption of inclusion cost 19–20, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 222, 237;

33–34; segregation or integration 28–29; see also funding special education

special classes in public schools 27–28; co-teaching in inclusive settings 58, 140,

trends in student placement 29–31; 144, 217, 234; see also teachers; teaching

see also inclusion; specific entries Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)

educational outcomes 13, 46–53, 47, 48, 51,

207, 209

80, 92–93, 140–141, 151, 163

Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates

education curriculum: curriculum-based

(COPAA) 207, 209–210

measurements (CBMs) 52, 228; inclusion

Council of Chief State School Officers

of SWD 47, 161, 162–167; and other

(CCSSO) 208, 213

classroom strategies 187–189

Coyne, M. 74, 75

Education of All Handicapped Children Act

Crockett, J. B. 196

(EAHCA) 27, 29, 47, 196, 197, 199, 250;

cultural relevancy 71

contribution in educational environment

30–31

Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education educator preparation programs see teachers 36, 210

effective instruction 67–80; barriers to Daniel two-part test 36–37

implementing 76–79; direct instruction Darling-Hammond, L. 78

Brown v. Board of Education 8, 28, 107

Buysse,V. 140, 151

268 Index

69–73; essential features 73–76; overview 68; principles by Ellis and Worthington 75; see also instruction efficacy of inclusion 140; systematic reviews and 150–151; teachers and 99; see also research studies on inclusion Elder,T. E. 118

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 47,

162–163 Ellis, E. S. 74, 75

emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD)

137, 140, 141

emotionally disturbed (ED) students 255

Endrew F. v. Douglas Country School District

32, 48, 200

English language learners (ELLs) 137

Equity in IDEA Rule 109, 122

European Agency for Special Needs and

Inclusive Education (EASNIE) 224, 227

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 47,

152, 183–184, 208

evidence-based pedagogical strategies 78–79; see also teachers; teaching evidence-based practices (EBP) 19,

152–153; for education curriculum 166;

in general education settings 171; see also

research studies on inclusion

evidence-informed practice 152–154 Exceptional Children (Reynolds) 197

explicit instruction 70–71, 74, 75–76, 95,

169; see also instruction

externalizing problem behaviors

subscale 114

eye gaze technology 163

fair equality of opportunity (FEO) 181

Farmer, E. M. 137

Farmer, T. W. 137

Farrell, E. 27–28 feedback: corrective 59, 108–109; effective

instruction and 70, 72–73, 77, 97,

100, 185

Firmender, J. M. 182

Fish, R. E. 118

Florian, L. 144

Fordham Institute 183–184 Forness, S. R. 161

free and appropriate publication education

(FAPE): and educational inclusion 1,

2, 3, 6, 26, 29, 31–33, 47–48, 169, 204,

206–207, 210; flawed thinking about

48–49

Freeman, S. F. 140, 151

Fuchs, L. S. 48

full inclusion: definition 3, 4, 195; habeas

corpus approach to 19–20; impact

of Article 24 219, 221, 229, 241;

international issues and 11; labeling and

15; legacies of inclusion movement and

250, 252–254, 260–261; mainstreaming

and 29; research evidence and 16, 18; see

also educational inclusion; inclusion

funding special education 40, 111, 122, 200,

235, 237; see also cost; special education

Garfinkle,A. N. 141

general education classrooms, and disproportionality 120; see also classrooms; disproportionality and inclusion Gerber, M. M. 251

Germany, CRPD committee recommendations to 217–224; attitudes toward inclusion 219–220; consequences for students with disabilities in Germany 222–224; impact on German education system 218–219; political context and implications 220–222 Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft

(GEW) (Germany) 220

Giangreco, M. F. 144

gifted students, inclusion of 176–190; conditions for 183–189; philosophical considerations 177–181; research on 182–183 Goetz, L. 140

Goodlad, J. I. 250

Greece, democratic education in 181,

190n3

guardians see parents habeas corpus 4–12, 15–20, 161, 242,

251–252, 257, 259–260

Hagopian, L. P. 172

Hallahan, D. P. 52

Harris, K. R. 141

Hattie, J. 69, 71, 72

Heller, K. 256

Herr, C. M. 204

Heward,W. L. 254

Hibel, J. 118

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008

190n4

high school, dropping out of 50

Holland four-part test 38

homebound instruction 232; see also instruction Hornby, G. 7

Huefner, D. S. 204

Index

Huerta, N. E. 197

Hunt, P. 140

IDEA (Education of All Handicapped

Children Act) 8, 14, 17, 47, 107;

academic differences in 121; 1997

Amendments 255–256; funding 210;

least restrictive environment (LRE)

principle 130; regulation criteria

197–199; on role of scientific research

152; see also LRE (least restrictive

environment)

IEP (individualized education program)

1, 6; 1997 Amendments to IDEA and

256; disproportionality and 108, 112;

evidence-informed practice and 154;

government and educational inclusion

and 199–200, 212; highly cited research

and 130; legal context in Portugal 224;

planning meaningful inclusion and

165–171, 165

individualized education program see IEP (individualized education program) implicit instruction 74; see also instruction Imray, P. 3–4, 6

inclusion 7; in all life activities 9–11;

defined 3, 26; evidence for 16–19; in

governmental and nongovernmental

organizations 195–214; habeas corpus

definition 4–7, 9–10, 11, 12, 15–20, 161,

251–252, 259–260; proprium instructio

definition 6–7, 12, 18, 20, 251; see also

educational inclusion; specific entries

inclusiopassion 3

inclusive classrooms 57–58, 99, 150, 177,

183, 185, 189, 219–220–222; see also

classrooms

Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) 25,

161, 169

inductive teaching 69; see also teaching inquiry-based teaching 69; see also teaching Institute for Applied Social Sciences (INFAS) 219

instructional assistant (IA) 18, 78, 223

instructional feedback 72–73; see also

feedback

instructional outcomes 49, 166; see also

outcomes

instructional procedures/tools 17, 74, 166,

170–172

instruction: academic 52, 53, 54, 56, 86;

differentiated 49, 58, 185, 225, 227, 234;

direct 69–73, 77, 254; explicit 70–71, 74,

269

75–76, 95, 169; homebound 232; implicit 74; literacy 69; phonics 69; self-care 170; see also effective instruction International Classification of Functioning,

Disability and Health (ICF) model 224

international organizations 207; see also Germany, CRPD committee recommendations to; Portugal; Netherlands; Russian Federation Iowa Professional Teaching Practices

Commission 258

J. H. v. Fort Bend Independent School District 36

January,A. M. 93

Jarmolowicz, D. P. 172

Journal Citation Record 154

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral

Disorders 87

judicial decisions, and educational inclusion 34–40; applying judicial standards of review 34–39; lessons from legislation and litigation 39–40 K-12 211, 258; accountability systems

183–184, 189

Kame’enui, E. J. 74

Kant 178

Kauffman, J. M. 57, 86, 88, 161, 254–255

Kavale, K.A. 140, 150–151, 161

Kelm, J. L. 99

kindergarten: academic and behavioral

difficulties 114–116, 120; positive

outcomes in 93

Kloo, A. 173

Knight, M. G. 109

Kratochwill, T. 86

Kulagina, E.V. 232, 236

Kulik, C-L. C. 186

Kulik, J.A. 186

L. H. v. Hamilton County Department of

Education 35

labels/labeling 14–16, 223, 237, 257

Landrum,T. J. 57

Laski, F. J. 5, 12

learning disabled (LD) students 255–256

Learning Experiences and Alternative

Program (LEAP) 141, 150

learning outcomes 13, 99; see also outcomes

learning subscale, teacher-rated 115

least restrictive alternative (LRA) 31

least restrictive environment see LRE (least

restrictive environment)

Lee, A. 168

270 Index

legacies, and general education context 249–260; changes, legacies, and responses to them 257–260; higher probability legacies 252–257; lower probability legacies 251–252 Lemons, C. J. 59

Lewis, E. 185

Linden, M.A. 6

literacy instruction 69; see also instruction local educational agencies (LEAs) 90, 168

Lowery, K.A. 164

LRE (least restrictive environment) 17;

academically advanced (gifted) students

and 176; Cases in US Courts of Appeals

205; free and appropriate public

education (FAPE) in 48, 107; future

40–41; highly cited research and 130,

153–154; inclusion in governmental

and nongovernmental 195–198,

200, 204, 206–212, 214; and judicial

decisions 34–40; need for 2–6, 12, 17,

31–34; placement issues and 78–79;

requirements 206; Roncker standard and

35; SWD implications and 78

Lubovsky,V. I. 234–235 mainstreaming 26–27, 29, 35–39, 47, 131,

196, 198

Makel, M. C. 182, 186

Marsh, J.A. 188

Martin, E.W. 204, 251

Mastropieri, M.A. 52, 58, 140, 149

Matthews, M. S. 182

McAdamis, S. 185

McCart,A. B. 253–254 McDuffie, K.A. 58

McDuffie-Landrum, K.A. 151

McIntosh, K. 99

McKenna, J.W. 3

meaningful inclusion 165–173; behavioral supports 172; curriculum 166–170; instructional procedures 170–171; sufficient instructional intensity 171; see also educational inclusion; inclusion menstrual suppression methods 168

Metzler, C.W. 92

Mills v. District of Columbia Board of

Education 31

Milton, M. 185

Mims, P. J. 168, 172

multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) 94,

227; see also tiered systems and inclusion

Murawski,W. 140, 151

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 255 National Association for Gifted

Children 184

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) 90–91 National Council for Learning Disabilities

(NCLD) 207, 211

national organizations 207

National Research Center on the Gifted

and Talented (NRCG/T) 182

Netherlands 237–240; consequences for

students with disabilities in 238–239;

legal context and influence of Article 24

in 237–238; social and political debate

239–240;“Unlimited Participation”

program 240

Nevo, I. 154

Nirje, B. 197

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 13, 47,

162–163

non-disability-names policy 242

nongovernmental organizations and inclusion 207–213;American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education 213; Autism Society of America 211–212; Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) 208–209; Council for Exceptional Children 209; Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates 209–210; Council of Chief State School Officers 213; National Center for Learning Disabilities 211;TASH 212–213 normalization 2, 28

Oakes,W. P. 99

Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs)

91–92, 95

Office of Civil Rights (OCR) 108, 110, 111

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 199–200, 201–203 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 199–200, 214n1 Oliver, R. M. 253

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. 186

On the Education of Persons with Disabilities in the City of Moscow (Moscow Law) 230–231 opportunities to respond (OTR) 52, 72, 75,

166, 171

Organizational Health Inventory for

Elementary Schools (OHI-E) 92

Index

Osgood, R. L. 42

Oshita, L. 151

outcomes: educational 13, 46–53, 47,

48, 51, 80, 92–93, 140–141, 151, 163;

instructional 49, 166; learning 13, 99;

tiered systems and inclusion 90–93

Panerai, S. 141

paraprofessionals 100, 144

PARC v. Pennsylvania 31

parents 223; attitudes toward inclusion

219–220, 219–221; emphasis on

individualized curriculum 164;

interviews with 114, 144; involvement

in education 32, 40, 41, 95, 97, 130–131,

154, 186, 198, 217, 231–232; placement

preferences 35, 204, 207; unmarried

115–116

Paulson, D. 93

Paz, O. 242

peers: attitudes of 162; coaching by 185;

interactions with 137, 141; nondisabled

10, 26, 31, 39, 47, 130, 206; training

141, 150

Peters, S. J. 182

phonics instruction 69; see also instruction Picture Exchange Communication

System 170

Pivik, J. 144

placement: comparisons for specialized instruction 57; issues 76–79; in LRE 32–34; settings and academic achievement 116; of SWD 130; see also LRE (least restrictive environment) Plucker, J.A. 182, 183, 186

policies, educational inclusion 259–260 Politik gegen Aussonderung 219

Portugal 224–230; future paths for special and inclusive education in 229–230; invisible disabilities and disability priorities 224–225; legal context 224; naming and identification issues 228–229; notion of inclusion in DecreeLaw No. 54 of 2018 225–226; ongoing restructuring process in special education 226–227; three-level system of support 227–228 positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) 87–88, 91–92, 94; see also IDEA (Education of All Handicapped Children Act) poverty 50, 109, 111, 163, 182

Praisner, C. L. 132

271

preschool children 141; see also kindergarten

problem-based learning 69

procedural fidelity 57–59

proprium instruction 6–7, 12, 18, 20, 251

public schools, and special education

26–31, 37, 160, 257

Pullen, P. C. 52

punishment 73, 218

R. F. v. Cecil County Public Schools 37

racial and ethnic disproportionality see

disproportionality and inclusion

racial bias 28, 111, 120; see also bias

Rambo-Hernandez, K. E. 182

Rapp, K. E. 186

Rea, P. J. 149

refer-test-place model 85

regional disparities in special education 234,

236, 241; see also special education

regular education initiative (REI) 47, 131,

160, 253, 255–256

Reid, D. K. 109

Reis, S. M. 182

research studies on inclusion 130–155;

evidence-based and evidence-informed

practice 152–154; highly cited research

studies 131–132, 137, 140–141, 144, 147;

limitations 49, 147, 149–152

Resource Centers for Inclusion (RCIs) 226

response to intervention (RTI) 4, 88,

90, 253

Reynolds, Drs.M. 197

Reynolds, M. C. 254

Robison, E. M. 186

Roncker standard 35

Roncker v.Walter 35

Russian Federation 230–237; academic

debate 234–235; CRPD, tensions in implementation of 233–234; implications for students with disabilities in 235–237; legal context 230–231; right to choose schools 231–232 Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. 38

Sailor,W. S. 4, 252, 253–254

Samsonova, E.V. 235

Schoolwide Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) 91–92

Schumm, J. S. 137

Schwartz, I. S. 141

Scott,T. M. 77

272 Index

Scruggs,T. E. 52, 58, 140 selection bias 57; see also bias self-care instruction 170 self-care skills 168–170 self-delusion 16 self-efficacy 98–99; see also efficacy of inclusion self-esteem development 69, 137, 223 self-help skills 168 separapassion 2, 3 serious emotional disturbances (SED) 86 severe learning disabilities (SLD) 6 Siegle, D. 188 Sievers, C. 164 Silvestri, S. M. 254 Simpson, R. L. 56 Siperstein, G. N. 132 Slater,A. E. 204, 207–208 Slavin, R. E. 186 Slee, R. 253 Slonim-Nevo,V. 154 social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) programming 54 social and communication skills 2, 85, 86, 93, 95, 100, 167–169, 224 social and emotional learning (SEL) programs 93 social desirability bias 149; see also bias social/emotional/behavioral difficulties (SEBD) 54, 241 social-emotional learning 92–93, 100 social inclusion 6, 25, 50, 225 social justice 4, 5, 25, 46, 60, 176–177, 190 social outcomes 78–79, 140, 151; see also outcomes Social Rating Scale 114 social skills rating system (SSRS) 114 social validity 85, 95–96, 98–99 socioeconomic status (SES) and disproportionality 108, 114, 121, 149 special education: defined 26; funding 40, 111, 122, 200, 235, 237; myths about 256–257 regional disparities in 234, 236, 241; scientific evidence and 257; see also IDEA (Education of All Handicapped Children Act); IEP (individualized education program); LRE (least restrictive environment) special educational needs (SEN): Germany 218, 219–220, 222–223; Netherlands 240; Portugal 224–230; Russia 233 special education practices: to improve academic outcomes 52, 53, 54; to improve social/emotional/behavioral outcomes 54, 55; individualization and 56

special educators and students with disabilities (SWD) see effective instruction; teachers specific learning disabilities (SLD) 86, 224 Spooner, F. 168 Spratt, J. 144 Stafford, R. 196, 198 Stainback, S. 5 Stainback, W. 5 Stambaugh, T. 187 Stanley, J. C. 150 Steenbergen-Hu, S. 186 Stowe, M. 197 Strain, P. S. 17–18, 141 Stride,A. N. 3 structural fidelity 57–58 students of color: disproportionate representation of 108–110; inclusive placement of 110–111 students with disabilities see SWD (students with disabilities) students with high-incidence difficulties see SWHID (students with high-incidence difficulties), inclusion of students with students with severe disabilities see SWSD (students with severe disabilities) sufficientism 180 Sunstein, C. R. 260 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) 107, 204 Swanson, L. 140, 151 SWD (students with disabilities) 1, 10, 46–60; educational outcomes, improvement of 46–48; empirical integrity and 56–60; engagement 70–72, 93; flawed thinking 48–51; historical context 27–31; outcomes in inclusive and non-inclusive settings 137; systemic investigation 51–52, 54, 56; with visual impairments 227 Sweeny, S. M. 182 SWHID (students with high-incidence difficulties), inclusion of students with 48–60; effective special education for 51–52, 54, 56; empirical integrity and educational inclusion 56–60; and FAPE 48–49; inadequacies and limitations of inclusion research 49; lifespan perspective on inclusion 50–51; mischaracterizing students 50 SWIFT schools 16, 17, 254 SWSD (students with severe disabilities) 160–173; defining inclusive education for 161–164; planning meaningful inclusion 165–172; specialized education for 164–165

Index

Tankersley, M. 57 TASH 208, 212–213 Taylor, T. 185

teachers: attitudes toward inclusion 132,

137, 140–141, 154, 162; behavioral

ratings 121; competencies 12, 17–18,

52; co-teaching 58, 140, 144, 217,

234; effective instruction and 68–80;

expectations of 19; influence on students

67; instructional procedures and 170;

special training requirement for 258–259;

teacher-rated approaches to learning

subscale 115; tiered system and 93–100;

training 28, 76–77, 86–87, 184–185;

well-being 98–99; see also classrooms;

instruction

teaching: inductive 69; inquiry-based 69;

stressors associated with 97

Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior

Problems (Wallace and Kauffman) 86

Theory of Justice, A (Rawls) 181

tiered systems and inclusion 85–101;

benefits of 96–101; implications for

special education 88–90; outcomes

90–93; overview 85–87; for preventing

and responding to problems 86;

purpose 88

Tomlinson, C. 58, 185–186 Treatment and Education of Autistic and

Communication Handicapped Children

(TEACCH) program 141

273

treatment: fidelity 57–58, 99; integrity 98;

intensity 59–60

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence 189

Turnbull, H. R. 197

universal design for learning (UDL) 234

US Department of Education (USDOE)

199–200, 199

VanTassel-Baska, J. 187, 189

Vaughn, S. 137, 140

Visible Learning (Hattie) 69

vocabulary development 69

Vonnegut, K. 181

Wagner, M. 137

Walker, H. 87

Wallace, G. 86

Walther-Thomas, C. S. 149

Warnock, M. 7

Watson, R. 93

Will, M. 255–256

Wolfensberger, W. 2

workshop training 185, 189

Worthington, L.A. 74, 75

Xin,Y. P. 140

Yudin, M. 93

Zigmond, N. 147, 153, 154, 173