Meyers SECOND EDITION THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Best Practices for All Learners OF INCLUSIVE ART EDUCATIONTHE THE ART OF

The Art of Inclusive Education: Best Practices for All Learners equips future INCLUSIVE EDUCATION educators with proven strategies for meeting the varied needs of students in the modern classroom, ranging from the most proficient to those with learning deficits to those who come from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. The book prepares teachers to embrace differences and implement approaches that Best Practices for All Learners maximize the potential of each and every student under their instruction. The book is divided into three parts. In Part I, readers examine foundational infor- mation regarding disabilities awareness and special education, the process of developing individualized education programs, and high-incidence and low-inci- Shelly Meyers

dence disabilities. Part II discusses cooperative learning strategies, literacy devel- Best Practices for All Learners opment, classroom behavior and management, the universal design for learning approach, and more. The final part presents methodologies for teaching English language learners and urban students. It also offers advice for teaching life skills that will help students excel in and out of the classroom. The second edition includes enhanced case studies for each chapter, as well as additional information on critical thinking skills and designing appropriate supports and services on both Individual Educational Programs and 504 Plans.

The Art of Inclusive Education is an excellent resource for programs and courses in education and special education, especially those with emphasis on teaching diverse populations.

Shelly Meyers is an associate professor and special education program coordinator at Stockton University. She holds an Ed.D. from Nova Southeastern University.

SKU 81933-2A

www.cognella.com The Art of Inclusive Education

Best Practices for All Learners

Second Edition

Shelly Meyers Stockton University

SAN DIEGO Bassim Hamadeh, CEO and Publisher Carrie Baarns, Manager, Revisions and Author Care Kaela Martin, Project Editor Christian Berk, Production Editor Jess Estrella, Senior Graphic Designer Alexa Lucido, Licensing Manager Natalie Piccotti, Director of Marketing Kassie Graves, Vice President of Editorial Jamie Giganti, Director of Academic Publishing

Copyright © 2021 by Cognella, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of Cognella, Inc. For inquiries regarding permissions, translations, foreign rights, audio rights, and any other forms of reproduction, please contact the Cognella Licensing Department at [email protected].

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Cover image copyright © 2012 Depositphotos/Iofoto.

Printed in the United States of America.

3970 Sorrento Valley Blvd., Ste. 500, San Diego, CA 92121 This book is dedicated to the people who inspire me and whom I love most.

Brian Meyers, Norman and Audrey Fischer, Erin, Chad, Sarah, Miller, Noa, Dean, Nolan and Laila. Brief Contents

PREFACE XVII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XIX PART I

CHAPTER 1 Foundations 3

CHAPTER 2 The Individualized Education Program 21

CHAPTER 3 High-Incidence Disabilities 43

CHAPTER 4 Low-Incidence Disabilities 55 PART II

CHAPTER 5 The Teacher 69

CHAPTER 6 Cooperative Learning 83

CHAPTER 7 The Brain and Learning 97

CHAPTER 8 Speech and Language 117

CHAPTER 9 Literacy Development 157

CHAPTER 10 Classroom and Behavior Management 177

CHAPTER 11 Universal Design for Learning 211 PART III

CHAPTER 12 English Language Learners 235

CHAPTER 13 The Urban Student 255

CHAPTER 14 Transition and Life Skills Instruction 271

INDEX 291

viii Detailed Contents

PREFACE XVII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XIX PART I

CHAPTER 1 Foundations 3 Introduction 3 Objectives 3 History 4 Legislation 11 Advocacy Groups 14 Closing 17 Discussion Questions 17 References 17 Online Resources for Teachers 18 Credits 18 Case Study: Ramona’s Story 20

CHAPTER 2 The Individualized Education Program 21 Introduction 21 Objectives 21 Background 22 Response to Intervention 23 Multitiered System of Support (MTSS) 24 Referral for Special Education 25 Terminology 27 Who Participates in the Development of the IEP? 31 The IEP Meeting 32 Training for the IEP Team 33 Section 504 and the Americans With Disabilities Act 34 Home and School Connection 36 Closing 37 Discussion Questions 37 References 38 Online Resources for Teachers 40 Credits 40 Case Study: Larissa 41

CHAPTER 3 High-Incidence Disabilities 43 Introduction 43 Objectives 45 Specific Learning Disabilities 45 Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 46 Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD) 48 Speech and Language Disabilities 49 Mild Cognitive Disabilities or Mild Intellectual Disabilities 51 Closing 51 Discussion Questions 52 References 53 Online Resources for Teachers 54 Credits 54

CHAPTER 4 Low-Incidence Disabilities 55 Introduction 55 Objectives 55 Intellectual Disabilities 56 Conceptual Domain 57 Social Domain 57 Practical Domain 58 Physical and Health Disabilities 58 Hard of Hearing and Deafness 59 Low Vision and Blindness 60 Deaf-Blindness 61 Traumatic Brain Injury 61

x Autism Spectrum Disorders 62 Multiple Severe Disabilities 63 Closing 63 Discussion Questions 64 References 64 Credits 65 PART II

CHAPTER 5 The Teacher 69 Introduction 69 Objectives 71 Roles and Responsibilities 71 Closing 77 Discussion Questions 78 References 79 Credits 81 Case Study: Malik 82

CHAPTER 6 Cooperative Learning 83 Introduction 83 Objectives 83 The Cooperative Learning Implementation Sequence 84 The Teacher in the Cooperative Learning Classroom 85 Teaching Skills for Learning and Working Cooperatively 89 Strategies for Engaging in Cooperative Learning 91 Closing 93 Discussion Questions 93 References 94 Credits 95 Case Study: Joe 96

CHAPTER 7 The Brain and Learning 97 Introduction 97 Objectives 97 The Teacher in the Classroom 99 What Can Teachers Do to Establish an Optimal

xi Learning Environment? 101

Closing 111 Discussion Questions 111 References 112 Case Study: Brian 115 Case Study: Jack 116

CHAPTER 8 Speech and Language 117 Introduction 117 Learning Objectives 118 Communication Difference Versus Communication Disorder 118 Types of Hearing Loss 121 Classroom Acoustics 123 Sound Field Amplification Systems 124 Speech and Language 125 Language 132 General Classroom Strategies 146 Strategies for Students Who Have Difficulty Following Directions and Processing Information 146 Closing 147 Discussion Questions 147 Resources for Teachers: Communication Skills 147 References 148 Credits 153 Case Study: Koren 154 Case Study: Omar 155

CHAPTER 9 Literacy Development 157 Introduction 157 Learning Objectives 158 Literacy Defined 158 Principles of Effective Literacy Instruction to Support a Range of Diverse Learners 159 Reading as a Constructive Process 160 Sociolinguistics and a Classroom Culture That Promotes Sociocultural Learning 161 Shared Reading/Close Reading/Read Aloud 162 Text-Dependent Questions 163

xii Cognitive Reading Strategies 164 Modeling and Effective Literacy Instruction 166 Authentic Literary Tasks 166 Reading and Writing: A Reciprocal Process 167 Technology as a Meaningful Resource 171 Closing 172 Discussion Questions 173 References 173 Credits 175 Case Study: Derrick 175

CHAPTER 10 Classroom and Behavior Management 177 Introduction 177 Objectives 177 Behavior Characteristics That Interfere With Learning 178 The Teacher in the Classroom 179 Functional Behavior Assessment 181 Behavior Management Strategies 195 The Academic Program 202 Closing 204 Discussion Questions 204 References 205 Credits 208 Case Study: Sarah 209

CHAPTER 11 Universal Design for Learning 211 Introduction 211 Learning Objectives 212 What Is UDL? 212 Guiding Principle 1: Engagement 214 Guiding Principle 2: Representation 216 Guiding Principle 3: Action and Expression 218 Process 219 Technology 226 Closing 226 Discussion Questions 227 References 228

xiii Credits 228 Case Study: Andrew 229 Case Study: Leslie 231 PART III

CHAPTER 12 English Language Learners 235 Introduction 235 Objectives 236 Terminology 236 Mandates 237 Mandated Instruction 238 Service Delivery Models 238 Issues 239 Stages of Language Acquisition 243 Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) 244 Strategies and Methods 244 Sample Lesson Plan 249 Closing 251 Discussion Questions 251 References 252 Credits 254 Case Study: Edwin 254

CHAPTER 13 The Urban Student 255 Introduction 255 Objectives 255 Characteristics 256 Challenges 258 The Teacher 259 Home–School Connection 260 Curriculum 261 Literacy: Balanced and Systematic 262 Community Involvement and Citizenship 265 Behavior Management 266 Closing 267 Discussion Questions 267

xiv Credits 268 Case Study: Johnnie 269 Case Study: Nikos 270

CHAPTER 14 Transition and Life Skills Instruction 271 Introduction 271 Objectives 271 Mandates 272 Responsible Personnel for Transition 274 Career Readiness Standards: Why Are Standards Important? 278 What Are Life Skills and How Do We Teach Them? 279 Closing 285 Discussion Questions 285 References 286 Credits 288 Case Study: Colin 289

INDEX 291

xv Preface

I am glad for the opportunity to share this second edition of The Art of Inclusive Edu- cation: Best Practices for All Learners. My interest in writing this book spans 45 years as I have participated in the evolution of special education and the laws that protect the interests of individuals with disabilities. When I started teaching, PL 94-142, Edu- cating All Handicapped Children, had just passed into law, requiring public schools to provide a “free appropriate public education” at no expense to parents of children with disabilities. I have witnessed many changes on the way to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEIA) 2004 and beyond, from separate classrooms hidden from the general student population to today’s fully inclusive educational settings. During my 40-year career as an educator, I have served in several capacities, initially as a special education classroom teacher, public school administrator, and director of various child study teams, culminating in my current position as a professor of special education at Stockton University. Throughout my career, I have provided educational services for students with disabilities in settings that include the continuum of most restrictive separate schools to full inclusion in the general education classroom. The content of the book is designed to offer research-proven strategies through different contexts that educators can include in their tool kit for meeting the needs of the diversified student population in their classes, ranging from the most proficient to those with learning deficits. Today’s classrooms are a rainbow of aptitudes and abilities. Seldom do we find classes composed of one ability group; rather, we see students from all cultural, socioeconomic, and disability categories educated together. Preparing teachers to embrace differences and implement research-proven proce- dures is essential for maximizing students’ success in school and for their participation in the community upon graduation. The content of each chapter is arranged in a consistent format, beginning with an overview of the individual concepts and moving through research-proven strategies with examples for their application. Teacher disposition is covered in each chapter because future educators need to understand the intrapersonal qualities of effective teachers and the necessary skills, knowledge, and challenges teachers face in con- ducting instructional practices with integrity for a diversified student population.

xvii The many roles, responsibilities, and human connections are elements of teachers’ ultimate impact on the lives of their students. As students come to rely on their teach- ers, the academic and social–emotional realms are equally significant in increasing students’ school success. I am hopeful that this book provides a small degree of insight based on my edu- cational experiences by offering strategies that support your efforts to embrace the ever-changing classroom dynamics in our schools today.

xviii | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Stockton University for supporting me in writing a book that informs future teachers in the practice of inclusive education. I give thanks to my friends and colleagues who willingly contributed their expertise to this book, Dr. Susan Cydis, Dr. Amy Hadley, and Dr. Kim Seifring; to Tia Tilton for her countless hours of research assistance, reading drafts and providing written critique; to Jill Yochim for her edits to text and PowerPoint presentations; and a special thanks to Maripat Perone for her insight in defining and practicing the art of inclusive education.

xix Part I

1 CHAPTER 1

Foundations The Building Blocks of Disabilities Awareness and Special Education

INTRODUCTION

History demonstrates we must learn from it lest it perpetually repeat; reflection on the past is necessary for a better future. (Spaulding & Pratt, 2015, p. 105)

Individuals with disabilities have been a presence during every century, within every culture, and included in every social context; however, attitudes toward disabilities morphed during different historical cycles. Today, as efforts to include all people with differences prevail, those with disabilities have a place in all community environments. This chapter begins the journey that leads to best practices in making sure all people, regardless of culture, ethnic background, socioeconomic status, or disability, find acceptance and full participation in their schools, workplaces, and communities. Topics covered include the history of disabilities, a timeline of legislation that pro- tects the civil rights of individuals with disabilities, and information about advocacy groups and their impact on the culture of disabilities as we know it today.

OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, students will be able to: 1. Describe the historical milestones and influential individuals who paved the way for an inclusive society. 2. Examine the evolution of legislation and evaluate the impact of laws on education and inclusion in the community. 3. Compare theories and practices of Goddard, Dybwad, Blatt, and Wolfensberger.

3 4. Investigate the role of advocacy groups in special education and the disability rights movement in the last century.

HISTORY Tracing back to the 17th and 18th centuries, individuals with disabilities were con- sidered a burden on society and were believed to be dependent on others for care. The American settlers were busy establishing the early colonies and followed laws established in England that moved children and adults seen as unhealthy, worthless, and diseased to institutions away from their responsibility (Obiakor et al., 2012). French physician Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard was one of the first advocates for those with disabilities and special education when he provided training for a young boy found wandering in the French forests. The book The Wild Boy of Aveyron recounts Itard’s experiences teaching a child believed to be a “hopeless idiot” and chronicles the effectiveness of his interventions in life skills and behavioral training, thus rec- ognizing that individuals with disabilities—even severe disabilities—can learn. The advanced thinking of Itard and his followers is reflected in current special education practices, such as providing individualized, intensive instruction; teaching through multimodalities; and emphasizing life skills in an inclusive environment. In addition, Itard was one of the first to implement behavioral modification theories with positive reinforcement. The movement directed by Itard highlighted the impor- tance of vocational preparation for maximum inclusion versus the option of seclusion in institutions (Lane, 1979). Another reformer, Dorthea Dix, developed educational programs and endorsed providing supports for indi- viduals with disabilities in specially designed settings where dignity was nurtured and respect embraced (Spal- ding & Pratt, 2015). Born in Maine in 1802, Dix began her teaching career in 1821, first with wealthy children, and then with the poor and neglected, which was the start of her advocacy efforts

4 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION for those from disadvantaged circum- stances. As a reformer, she spoke for the rights of all people with disabilities and lobbied for legislation that offered services, support, and better treatment in institutions. She presented bills to ensure civil rights for individuals with disabilities that were passed in several states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Massa- chusetts (Neuhaus & Smith, 2014). During the same period, a theory proposed in 1859 by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection stated that animals more able to adapt to their environments were more likely to survive and reproduce, and thus were more “fit.” However, people interpreted Darwin’s work to suggest that his theory extended to humans as well as animals, and thus peoples’ ability to survive was a direct correlation with their intellectual capabilities and their value to society. This led to the birth of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Proponents of eugenics claimed that individuals who were not fit for society should yield to involuntary sterilization because of their intellectual limitations and the belief that they were unfit to reproduce (Quinn, 2007). One of the first devotees of eugenics was Dr. Henry Goddard, who studied the Kallikak family. He concluded that individuals with intellectual disabilities were criminals, paupers, prostitutes, and alcoholics, which he believed were all genetically determined conditions. He believed that involuntary sterilization was the solution to preventing the continuation of feeblemindedness. Forced sterilization was a common practice in the early 20th century, and when Carrie Buck, a woman deemed intel- lectually disabled, was involuntarily sterilized in 1927, she filed charges stating that her civil rights had been violated. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who had written the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, ruled on the case, Buck v. Bell (1927). He ruled that Carrie Buck’s rights were not protected by the 14th Amendment because individuals with intellectual deficits should not be allowed to reproduce because those children would very likely have the same disabilities. Shortly thereafter, Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, supported the segregation of those with disabilities to eliminate the possibility of marriage and reproduction with the nondisabled population.

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 5 6 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Later in the 20th century, advocacy efforts emerged that began the trend toward better times. A forward-thinking group including Gunnar Dybwad, Burton Blatt, and Wolf Wolfensberger, whose platform favored inclusion and opportunities for training and normalization, took center stage in disabilities activism (LaNear & Frattura, 2007). Gunnar Dybwad began his career in Germany and later moved to America to complete his education. Dybwad assumed influential directorships in Michigan child welfare programs, the National Association for Retarded Children (later named The Arc), and taught disabilities studies at Brandeis University and Syracuse University. His platform within the disabilities rights movement included deinstitutionalization, inclusive education, and teaching self-advocacy skills to individuals with disabilities. Burton Blatt, another advocate for deinstitutionalization, was a major force in the initiation of inclusive living arrangements and inclusive schooling for individuals with disabilities. Blatt’s photographic essay “Christmas in Purgatory,” highlighting abusive conditions in institutions, received national attention and led to the closing of many institutions for the intellectually disabled. Research confirmed many del- eterious psychological effects of institutionalization, including trauma from family separation and the inability of the individuals to mature emotionally and cognitively (Grunewald, 2003). Blatt characterized his visits to the institutions he photographed as bringing him to the “depths of despair that will not abate until the American people are aware of and do something about the treatment of the severely mentally retarded in our state institutions. We have again been caused to realize that ‘Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn’” (Blatt & Kaplan, 1974). Throughout the deinstitutionalization movement, the term normalization appeared more and more often. Wolf Wolfensberger’s collaborative efforts with Dybwad and Blatt defined normalization as the acceptance of people with disabilities and offering them the same living conditions as afforded to others without disabilities. More spe- cifically, Wolfensberger added that normalization reflects the normal conditions of life, housing, schooling, vocational opportunities, and recreation in the community, along with the freedom to choose preferred activities. He defined normalization as the principle that children, youth, and adults with disabilities were entitled access to the same experiences experienced by nondisabled people. Efforts toward normalization began with parents lobbying for support so that their children could remain in the home, rather than housed in institutions, which was the advice doctors often gave to parents of children with more severe disabilities. Wolfensberger’s normalization campaign brought to light the importance of social contexts in which inclusion is accepted and is based on the value of life and the contributions everyone makes in the society in which they live. He sought to dispel the negative perceptions of disabilities

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 7 and put in place services and supports to guarantee opportunities for inclusion and integration in all environments (Mesibov, 1990). Wolf Wolfensberger, as well as Burton Blatt, Gunnar Dybwad, and others, believed that to change society’s attitudes and perceptions, a systematic reform movement was necessary, and they did just that, educating people whose resistance to normalization within their communities was maintained by negative stereotypical characteristics of disabilities. Their message was loud and clear: Individuals with disabilities should not be pitied, discarded as worthless, or considered a burden, but rather appreciated as valuable contributors to the world in which we live. Through the efforts of leaders in the field of special education who came before us, disability rights became ever-present in the American consciousness, and it is through us that it continues. The next era recognized the need for pro- tections in educating children with disabilities, as the number of included chil- dren in the education system continued to rise. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Con- stitution mandates that states provide a compulsory education for their resident children, based on the premise that states are better able to determine the needs of their constituents than the federal govern- ment. Nevertheless, children with disabilities were often excluded from schools, and many state policies grossly contradicted the compulsory education clause (Yell et al., 1998). Beattie v. Board of Education (1919) and the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, case in 1934 are examples in which children with mental retardation were denied access to public education and par- ents fought unsuccessfully for their children’s rights. School districts main- tained that too much of the teacher’s time and school resources would be spent on children less likely to succeed, and would therefore take away resources from children without disabilities. Although parent advocates gained a voice during the early 20th century, the Great Depression and lack of funding for services for children with disabilities posed problems for inclusion in public schools.

8 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION and put in place services and supports to guarantee opportunities for inclusion and By the mid-20th century, his- integration in all environments (Mesibov, 1990). tory was made by the civil rights Wolf Wolfensberger, as well as Burton Blatt, Gunnar Dybwad, and others, believed movement, disabilities legislation, that to change society’s attitudes and perceptions, a systematic reform movement was parent advocacy groups, profes- necessary, and they did just that, educating people whose resistance to normalization sional organizations, and strong within their communities was maintained by negative stereotypical characteristics of political lobbies that helped shape disabilities. Their message was loud and clear: Individuals with disabilities should not special education as we know it be pitied, discarded as worthless, or considered a burden, but rather appreciated as today. One of the most famous valuable contributors to the world in which we live. Through the efforts of leaders in cases of the period is Brown v. the field of special education who came before us, disability rights became ever-present Board of Education (1954), which in the American consciousness, and it is through us that it continues. guaranteed equal rights for all The next era recognized the need for pro- children under the 14th Amend- tections in educating children with ment. The Brown case outlawed the disabilities, as the number of included chil- segregation of African American dren in the education system continued to children in public schools and ulti- rise. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Con- mately made it illegal to segregate stitution mandates that states provide a any child, including those with compulsory education for their resident disabilities (LaNear & Frattura, children, based on the premise that states 2007; Yell et al., 1998). Politicians are better able to determine the needs of raised their voices when Ameri- their constituents than the federal govern- cans were introduced to a sister of ment. Nevertheless, children with John F. and Robert Kennedy who disabilities were often excluded from had intellectual disabilities. The schools, and many state policies grossly Kennedy administration provided contradicted the compulsory education funding for educating those with clause (Yell et al., 1998). Beattie v. Board of disabilities and declared segrega- Education (1919) and the Cuyahoga County, tion unconstitutional (LaNear & Ohio, case in 1934 are examples in which Frattura, 2007). children with mental retardation were Two landmark decisions followed denied access to public education and par- Brown: Pennsylvania Association for ents fought unsuccessfully for their Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Com- children’s rights. School districts main- monwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) tained that too much of the teacher’s time and school resources would be spent on and Mills v. Board of Education children less likely to succeed, and would therefore take away resources from children (1972). Four arguments in both without disabilities. Although parent advocates gained a voice during the early 20th cases resonate with civil rights principles, such as (1) all children with intellectual century, the Great Depression and lack of funding for services for children with disabilities are capable of learning; (2) education for children with disabilities should disabilities posed problems for inclusion in public schools. include academic, daily living, and vocational skills; (3) states are required to provide

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 9 education for all citizens, which includes those with disabilities, and (4) education should be provided for preschool-age children to establish basic foundation skills for future learning (Yell et al., 2007). Both cases resulted in settlements, with the promise that more public funding would be allocated to educate students with disabilities; however, inequity of services persisted. Many children were turned away from general education classrooms and placed in specialized schools for children with disabilities. In fact, there were cases in which children with physical disabilities were placed in classes for children with intellectual disabilities, where services and programming were not designed to meet their needs (Martin et al., 1996). Another case, Rowley (1982), illustrated obstacles in the provi- sion of services for children with disabilities. In this case, the child was denied an interpreter because the school district determined she was making grade-level progress without one. Speech and language services as well as a tutor for the deaf were provided, and the child met the grade-level achievement standards. The district court and the court of appeals found for the plaintiffs (the child’s parents); however, the Supreme Court overturned the decision by stating that schools are not required to maximize a child’s potential, but they must provide the same advantages as other children receive (Dang, 2010). Furthermore, the Court maintained that because the child made educational progress without an interpreter but with the other services provided, “close is close enough” (LaNear & Frattura, 2007). Thirty years after Rowley courts are still interpreting the question of free appropriate public education (FAPE) and the degree to which “appropriate” meets the needs of a child with a disability. Is it enough to provide services that are “reasonably calculated to enable (the student) to receive educational benefits”? In March 2017, the Supreme Court looked again at FAPE in the case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District and redefined the standard as “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” An individualized education program must be developed so that the educational program sets the child up for success in the same way a child without disabilities is set to proceed through school.

10 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION The cases just discussed highlight some of the inconsistencies in special education law, but other cases fully support inclusion and recognize the benefits of integrat- ing children with disabilities into the general education environment. Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education El Paso Independent School District (1989), Greer v. Rome City School District (1991), and Oberti v. Borough of Clementon School District (1993) provided criteria for determining whether a full-time placement in general education was appropriate for students with moderate disabilities (Lipton, 1994). The courts acknowledged that full inclusion is based on the fit of the supports and services deliv- ered in the classroom for meeting the individual needs of the student. In addition, a continuum of placement options exists, whereby a student may be removed from the general education setting for part of the day while still exposing the student to children without disabilities for the maximum amount of time possible. Other factors considered by the courts were: (1) comparing the benefit from the regular classroom with benefits realized in a specialized classroom for students with disabilities; (2) determining whether the school district provided appropriate supplemental aids and services to support the student; and (3) considering the negative effects of the student’s participation on other students in the classroom. In these cases, the courts upheld students’ inclusive placements and confirmed their rights to be educated in regular education classes to the maximum degree. In summary, the history of special education has long evolved from school districts’ rejection of students who were considered uneducable, to then placing students in a general education classroom with supports and services, where education for all is provided. Today, treatment of persons with disabilities emphasizes educational rights and individualized programs that lead to higher education and workplace opportunities (Martin et al., 1996). “At each step in history, there was always a handful of individuals who saw beyond the man of his time and dreamed of a future when men would be capable of much greater acts in various realms, e.g., the social, moral, and intellectual spheres. Without this handful of individuals it is unpleasant to contemplate how things might have turned out,” (Blatt & Kaplan, 1974).

LEGISLATION Essential to any discussion of the history of disabil- ities is the legislation that guaranteed the rights of those with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, originally written as Title VI of the Civil

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 11 Rights Act, Section 504, safeguarded the rights of individuals with disabilities against discrimination in the workplace and by any agency that receives federal funding (Yell et al., 1998). The law also includes affirmative action mandates as well as ensuring access to public facilities, such as federal and state buildings (Aron & Loprest, 2012; Martin et al., 1996). The Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) of 1975, also known as Public Law (P.L.) 94-142, provided for the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities and mandated that they should be educated to the maximum extent with children who do not have disabilities (Sailor & McCart, 2014). A free appropriate public educa- tion (FAPE) and an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) were also provi- sions of the EHA. The act was reauthorized in 1986 to include services for infants and toddlers through an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP), which pro- vided support to children and their families until the child’s 3rd birthday.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Two important pieces of legislation were passed in 1990: the Americans with Disabil- ities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA (1990, 1997, and 2004) provided additional provisions not included in the EHA. This law included the terms “autism” and “traumatic brain injury” as cat- egories of disability, and removed “handicapped,” to be replaced with the more acceptable term “disabilities.” IDEA was reauthorized in 1997 and 2004 with the following changes: modification of the “other health impaired” category to include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the addition of requirements for disciplinary procedures to preserve the rights of children with disabilities in school behavior regulations with a 10-day maximum suspension rule. Schools were mandated to conduct a functional behavior assessment to determine the function of the child’s inappropriate behaviors and to develop a behavior intervention plan to decrease

12 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION problem behaviors and teach appropriate replacement behaviors. A “highly qualified teacher requirement” was added to teachers’ qualifications, such that those holding a special education endorsement were required to pass standardized exams that demonstrated their proficiency in teaching the subject matter content for which they were assigned. Other changes included a mandate that all children with disabilities were required to participate in annual state or district testing with accommodations or an alternative assessment and that identification of children with specific learning disabilities was expanded from the discrepancy model, which compared a child’s intelligence quotient (IQ) score with his or her academic achievement, to a more functional approach. The law was also changed such that children who brought drugs or weapons to school or engaged in violent behavior could be placed in an Interim Alternative Educational Placement (IAES) for up to 45 school days. The ADA protects indi- viduals with disabilities from discrimination in employment, transporta- tion, public buildings, and telecommunication and removes any barriers to community participation. The act prohibits discrim- ination by a public entity and is very clear about any discrimination based on one’s disability. The IDEA provides services for chil- dren with disabilities while they are in school, from age 3 until they graduate at the age of 21. Upon gradua- tion, the ADA provides civil rights protection for individuals with disabilities for the remainder of their lives.

No Child Left Behind (2001) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2001) brought high-stakes testing and an accountabil- ity system to school districts for all students and required schools to use assessment data when designing instructional practice. For the first time in our history, the academic progress of all children was monitored and all students were expected to make “adequate yearly progress” with the mastery of content knowledge needed to

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 13 proceed to the next grade level. All children, including minority children and those with disabilities, were held to the same standards, and as a result achievement levels improved.

ADVOCACY GROUPS

Groups of parents and teachers began to advocate for children with disabilities and lobbied politicians to contest the less-than-adequate services in schools and com- munities to ensure that improvement would follow. One of the first groups was the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), first named the International Council for the Education of Exceptional Children in 1922, and renamed its current title in 1958. While attending a summer session at the Teachers College of Columbia, a group of school administrators, supervisors, and teachers recognized the need for quality edu- cational programming for children with intellectual, physical, and sensory disabilities.

United Cerebral Palsy Families with children afflicted with cerebral palsy were urged to institutionalize their children because of the intense care often required. Many parents, however, wished to keep their children at home but lacked support services and felt very isolated. In 1949, Leonard H. Goldenson and his friend Jack Hausman, along with their wives, advertised a support group for families whose children had cerebral palsy. They received such an overwhelming response that United Cerebral Palsy quickly became a national organization.

14 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION National Society for Autistic Children Parents of children with autism often felt guilt for their child’s disability, and like other parents whose children had disabilities, were advised to institutionalize them. Few treatment options were available, and parents did not know where to seek help. In 1961, Rosalind Oppenheim, a parent of a child with autism, wrote an article expressing her frustration and received many letters from parents like her. One parent, Dr. Bernard Rimland, who had a child with autism, published a book titled Infantile Autism (1964) and made plans to start a support organization. In 1965, the organization, which was initially called the National Society for Autistic Children, and later the Autism Society, had a membership of more than 60 parents who sought education and care for individuals with autism. Since then, the society has grown and influenced much legislation and program development.

Association for Retarded Children (ARC) During the 1950s, a small group of parents gathered to voice their concerns over the lack of understanding about intellectual disabilities. Because there were few programs in the community, doctors often recommended institutionalization. Parents, how- ever, wanted more for their children—inclusion in their schools and communities and a change of societal perceptions about the disabled from unable to able, as well as recognition of their potential. Today, the organization is known as The Arc, and the term “retarded” has become a derogatory term.

Association for Children With Learning Disabilities The Association for Children with Learning Disabilities was founded at around the same time as the Autism Society and with a similar mission—to develop a working definition of the “perceptually handicapped child” and to provide guidance with legislative initiatives, educational programs, training methods, and diagnostic proce- dures. Dr. Samuel Kirk identified the disability as a “learning disability,” and in 1964, a group of volunteers composed of educators and parents established the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, now known as the Learning Disabilities Asso- ciation of America. This organization facilitated the passage of legislation such as the Children with Specific Learning Disabilities Act of 1969, which defined and mandated specific instructions to meet the unique needs of children with learning disabilities.

The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps (TASH) (1974) The founder of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH), Wayne Sailor, met with a group of educators, advocates, and researchers in attendance at an

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 15 American Association on Mental Deficiency Conference in the mid-1970s with the idea that students with more severe disabilities should be represented by a national organization. Thus, the American Association for the Education of Severely and Pro- foundly Handicapped was founded and was joined by families who finally had a forum to raise their concerns about the lack of educational and support services available for their children. The members of the organization promoted deinstitutionalization, community inclusion, education, and training, as well as the use of research-based principles to strengthen the services available for those with more severe disabilities.

Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health (1988) In the late 1980s, groups of parents and caregivers shared a common concern—there were no support services for children with mental health challenges. In response, the federally funded Child and Adolescent Service System Program (CASSP) empowered families to attend meetings with the U.S. Department of Education to garner support for programs and services, and in December 1988, 80 parents attended a conference sponsored by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research to give input on issues involving children’s mental health. By 1991, there were over 500 members, and today more than a thousand new members join each year.

ADVOCACY GROUPS Council for Exceptional Children CEC 1922 United Cerebral Palsy UCP 1949 Association for Retarded Children ARC 1950 Association for Children with Learning Disabilities ACLD 1964 National Society for Autistic Children NSAC 1965 Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps TASH 1974 Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health CASSP 1991 Child and Adolescent Service System Program

Advocacy groups continue today with a force so strong that their members influence all aspects of American society and societies abroad. We cannot help but notice the impact these groups have made on the lives of individuals with disabilities. Disabil- ities awareness, civil rights of individuals with disabilities, and special education as we know it today would not exist if not for the activism and selfless determination of these groups to ensure that equal opportunity means equal opportunity for all.

16 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION CLOSING This chapter reviewed the history of the treatment of people with disabilities and the legislation that has influenced the ways in which schools design educational programming for students with disabilities. The following chapters focus on special education, the rules and regulations that oversee educational planning, and specific disability categories. Best practices in instruction provide the foundation of the remaining chapters and include those considered evidence based and research proven to maximize the learning of all students in today’s diverse classrooms.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. If you were to identify a time in the evolution of disability rights that most significantly influenced current policy, which would you choose and why? 2. Explain how Goddard’s advocacy of eugenics and involuntary sterilization differs from later reforms of Dybwad, Blatt, and Wolfensberger. 3. Summarize the rulings of Beattie v. BOE (1919), PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Mills v. BOE (1972). How did these cases affect normal- ization and inclusion? 4. How have advocacy groups affected changes in society’s perceptions of people with disabilities? 5. After reading this chapter, choose one topic that you believe is most essential in the study of disabilities and explain why.

REFERENCES 1. Blatt, B., & Kaplan, F. (1974). Christmas in purgatory: A photographic essay on mental retardation. Human Policy Press. 2. Brown, F., McDonnell, J., & Snell, M. E. (2016). Instruction of students with severe disabilities. Pearson Education. 3. Dang, M. T. (2010). The history of legislation and regulations related to children with devel- opmental disabilities: Implications for school nursing practice today. Journal of School Nursing, 26(4), 252–259.

4. Grunewald, K. (2003). Close the institutions for the intellectually disabled; everyone can live in the open society. A pamphlet on the European year of people with disabilities [Pamphlet]. Saltsjo-Duvnas.

5. Lane, H. (1979). The wild boy of Aveyron. Harvard University Press.

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 17 6. LaNear, J., & Frattura, E. (2007). Getting the stories straight: Allowing different voices to tell an “effective history” of special education law in the United States. Education and the Law, 19(2), 87–109.

7. Mesibov, G. B. (1990). Normalization and its relevance today. Journal of Autism and Develop- mental Disorders, 20(3), 379–390. 8. Neuhaus, R., & Smith, C. (2014). Disability rights through the mid-20th century. American Bar Association, 31(6), 1–10. 9. Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(3), 477–490. 10. Quinn, P. (2007). The gentle Darwinians: What Darwin’s champions won’t mention. Com- monweal, 134(5), 9. 11. Smith, D. D., & Chowdhuri, T. N. (2014). Introduction to contemporary special education: New horizons. Pearson Education. 12. Spaulding, L. S., & Pratt, S. M. (2015). A review and analysis of the history of special educa- tion and disability advocacy in the United States. American Educational History Journal, 42(1), 91–109.

13. The full inclusion court cases 1989–1994 (National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1994).

14. Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2007). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and the 2006 regulations. Council for Exceptional Children, 32(4), 194–201.

15. Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Lodge Rodgers, E. (1998). The legal history of special education: what a long, strange trip it’s been. Remedial & Special Education, 19(4), 219–229.

ONLINE RESOURCES FOR TEACHERS 1. U.S. Department of Education, Free Appropriate Public Education for Students With Disabilities: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-FAPE504.html 2. Legal Information Institute, Least Restrictive Environments (LRE) Requirements: https:// www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.114

CREDITS Fig. 1.1: Copyright © Stephanie Clifford (CC BY 2.0) at https://www.flickr.com/photos/30486689@ N08/3484298583/in/photolist-aCpRAF-6iTWzv-6iY8ao-6V1MWD-6V1Qbc. Fig. 1.2: Copyright © Glen (CC BY 2.0) at https://www.flickr.com/photos/l2f1/5670751050/in/ photolist-9D75HQ-nxcBn-2wnVDy-637yCY-9D7275-55PuhW-cAY7mu-9D4doV-8jLmHW-aJLnBB- 55PFrq-55Kzz8-8jLmRo-55Pzuj-oxXUo-63c82b-5wbFrY-8RxfZJ-6QV8vC-csabXS-aJLnRz-aJLn- Hp-aJLnmF-6YY64e-aJLnXk-aJLnuv-5ZpBv7-6RhS2N-pg. Fig. 1.3: Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exibicao_eugenica.gif

18 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Fig. 1.4: Copyright © Gbauer8946 (CC BY-SA 3.0) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indi- ana_Eugenics_Law_Marker.JPG. Fig. 1.5: Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Attorney_General_Robert_Kennedy_tes- tifying_before_a_Senate_subcommittee_hearing_on_crime.jpg Fig. 1.6: Source: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Of41YuKf8kGdAVTTR1j5zQ.aspx Fig. 1.7: Copyright © Travis13 (CC BY 2.0) at https://www.flickr.com/photos/7209419@N02/487505979/ in/photolist-K5Axv-ckkoq-pb6J7-8gx1Y5-dQpnvK-9A4ueB-3tPT3-5mXSji-GoHWF-9mQmZB-ziykuy- 6FCXNv-8UQfqV-nMpe1D-2ZebVr-F9upvK-ACoYDL-68kotZ-py8NXL-DpyHv2-sq8LAW-kuDm2T- sqg7q2-d9vMij-bnHa9j-4Pr8fU-oTMfxP-azB4rv. Fig. 1.8: Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg Fig. 1.9: Copyright © 2014 Depositphotos/Airdone. Fig. 1.10: Copyright © 2015 Depositphotos/Wavebreakmedia. Fig. 1.11: Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_signs_ADA.jpg

Chapter 1 – Foundations | 19 CASE STUDY: RAMONA’S STORY

Ramona was born in a rural area to a single mother who was unemployed and lived in a small home that was in disrepair. Before her birth, Ramona’s mother was a domestic servant but lost her job due to her pregnancy. Ramona’s father left the two because he lost his job and moved to look for work. Ramona’s mother believed she had no choice but to marry another man who she thought would support her. Her mother had two children with this man, but he too abandoned them, this time leaving Ramona’s mother with three children to care for alone. Ramona’s mother met yet another man who consented to marry her if she sent her children away. Ramona was 8 years old and found herself on the steps of an institution for the “feeble- minded.” Her mother explained to the institution’s administrators that Ramona was a “moron,” and although she could wash and dress herself, she could not read or count. Living at the institution, Ramona learned useful skills such as sewing, dressmaking, and wood- working. As a young adult, she was recognized for her talents in embroidery, mending, and carpen- try and she learned to play an instrument and performed in the institution’s orchestra; however, she remained illiterate. When Ramona turned 25 years old, she was transferred to another institution, whose purpose was to protect her from “reproducing and perpetuating feeblemindedness.” Later, Ramona worked as a nurse’s aide and helped with the care of younger children at the institution. She was a valuable employee and contributed many skills to the overall running of the institution. Ramona lived in the institution until her death at 89 years; 81 of them were spent in an institution. Ramona’s story illustrates a societal trend of those times, that is, the eugenics movement.

1. Based on the historical perspective, when would Ramona have lived? 2. How would Ramona have fared if she was deinstitutionalized at a point in her life? 3. What supports and services would she have needed to adapt to her community?

Goddard, H. H. (1912). The Kallikak family. MacMillan & Co.

20 | THE ART OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION