Making Inclusion a Reality for Students with Severe Disabilities

Making Inclusion a Reality for Students With Severe Disabilities

Pamela S. Wolfe • Tracey E. Hall

Let’s end the debate about whether to ronment (LRE). The concept of LRE is as a means by which the student may include students with severe disabilities based on the belief that educators must meet his or her IEP objectives. For exam- in the general education classroom (see provide a range of placement options ple, teachers can address many objec- box, “What Does the Literature Say?”). (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Thomas & tives from the IEP in the general educa- Let’s focus on how and when and where. Rapport, 1998). A cascade of placement tion setting by considering a range of This article provides helpful perspectives options can range from the home-school adaptations and accommodations. and suggestions for teachers, students, and general education class setting to The Cascade of Integration Options and parents in the struggle to provide an institutional placements. This cascade illustrates a range of accommodations appropriate education for all students. of services highlights the need to indi- for students with severe disabilities who Here, we provide a cascade of inte- vidualize and base decisions for place- are included in general education set- gration options for inclusion. These ment on the student’s unique needs. tings (see box, “Cascade of Integration integration options are based on the As noted, schools and districts are Options”). This cascade includes the work of many researchers (Bradley, placing more students with severe dis- following poles: King-Sears, & Tessier-Switlick, 1997; abilities in general education settings. But • The least restrictive inclusion option Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 1998; placement alone is insufficient to guaran- in which no changes are made Janney & Snell, 2000; Stainback & tee that the student with disabilities will (unadapted participation in the gen- Stainback, 2000). benefit educationally. The optimal inte- eral education curriculum). In these options, we have applied gration option is based on two factors: • A more restrictive option in which content area instruction to inclusive set- • The type of activity undertaken in the students with severe disabilities are tings, using a case example. We have general education setting. temporarily removed from the setting also outlined a system designed to facil- • The objectives stated on the student’s (functional curriculum outside the itate collaborative planning between IEP. general education classroom). general and special education teachers, Decisions about including a student The cascade also includes a series of using a student’s individualized educa- with severe disabilities are frequently ori- questions designed to help educators tion program (IEP) as a foundation for ented toward fitting the student into the make decisions concerning the most decision making. Use of the IEP ensures existing general education classroom appropriate integration options during that educational programming is both activities and focus primarily on social content area instruction. individualized and integrated with the integration (Scruggs & Mastropieri,

, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 56-60. Copyright 2003 CEC. general classroom curriculum. 1996). The social integration focus negates the opportunity for the “includ- The social integration focus The Cascade of Integration ed” student to receive instruction in con- of inclusion negates the Options tent areas. Although we acknowledge the The Individuals with Disabilities value of social integration, we advocate opportunity for the student Education Act (IDEA) promotes the con- that programming should emanate from with disabilities to receive cept of placement of students with dis- the student’s IEP objectives. Teachers abilities into the least restrictive envi- should consider content area coursework instruction in content areas. TEACHING Exceptional Children

56 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN What Does the Literature Say About Inclusion for Students With Severe Disabilities? The inclusion of students with severe disabilities into general education classrooms has become increasingly prevalent (Katsiyannis, Conderman, & Franks, 1995; Sailor, Gee, & Karasoff, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Although IDEA ‘97 does not mandate the inclusion of students with disabilities, the legislation strongly encourages consideration of appropriate placement in general education settings. Definition. The term inclusion has many interpretations. We have adopted the definition of inclusion noted by Mastropieri and Scruggs (2000) in which students with disabilities are served in the general education classroom under the instruction of the general education teacher. Specifically it involves providing support services to the student in the general education setting versus excluding the student from the setting and their peers. Inclusion requires the provision of adaptations and accommodations to classroom curriculum to ensure that the student will benefit from the placement. The definition, however, does not require that the student with special needs perform at a level comparable to peers without disabilities. Benefits of Inclusion. Many research studies have shown that the inclusion of students with severe disabilities into general education settings is beneficial for all students (those with and without disabilities) particularly in relation to social acceptance, self-esteem, and social skills (Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997; Mu, Siegel, & Allinder, 2000). Although some research has indi- cated academic gains, teachers are more challenged to appropriately include students with severe disabilities in the content areas (Heller, 2001). Content domain areas include social studies, sciences, health, and related academic subjects. Role of the IEP. Given that the goal of inclusion is to assure that all students benefit from instruction, educators must provide programming that meets the needs of all students including those with disabilities. For students with disabilities, the IEP serves as the document to guide program planning and instruction. Educators should use the IEP to determine what should be taught, how the content should be taught, and who can most appropriately provide instruction. Roles of Professionals. There are many professionals involved in providing services for students with severe disabilities in included settings. Two frequent members to this team of professionals are the general education and special education teachers. The collaboration of these teachers is essential to assure that the student with disabilities is successful in the placement both socially and academically (Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000; Salend, 2001; Salisbury, Evans, & Palombaro, 1997; Snell & Janney, 2000). Both teachers need to be aware of the student’s IEP objectives and use this document to guide program planning decisions and data collection procedures. To meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, changes in the curriculum may be necessary.

Collaborative Planning for tion teacher is asked to reflect upon and how those objectives can be Inclusion the individual student’s IEP objectives addressed in the general education As noted previously, the collaboration of educators involved with the student hav- Cascade of Integration Options ing severe disabilities is essential to Unadapted participation in the general curriculum ensure appropriate integration and edu- Same activities, same objectives, same setting cational programming. Special and gener- • Can student complete the activities as written for the general education class- al education teachers must share knowl- room? edge about teaching strategies when • Do one or more lesson objectives match the student’s IEP? planning effective instruction. Through Adaptations to the general curriculum collaborative teaming, teachers set the Same activities, different (related) objectives, same setting stage for student achievement of goals. • Can the student meet the lesson objectives with minor modifications (time, We have identified two stages of response mode)? planning for special and general educa- Embedded skills within the general curriculum tion teachers when considering options Similar activity, different (related) objectives, same setting for content area integration. Table 1 lists • Are there components of the activity that can be met by the student, even if not these stages as preplanning and collab- the central objective of the lesson but match an IEP objective? orative planning activities. Functional curriculum in the general education classroom • In the preplanning stages, the general Different activities, different (related) objectives, same setting education teacher reflects on the con- • Are the class activities greatly unrelated to the student’s IEP? Are there IEP objec- tent area unit activities and conducts a tives that could be met in the same setting? task analysis to identify key compo- Functional curriculum outside general education classroom nents of the lessons. Once the general Different activities, different (unrelated) objectives, different setting education teacher has identified com- • Are the class activities greatly unrelated to the student’s IEP? Are IEP objectives ponents of the unit, the special educa- better met in a different setting (require equipment, repetition, etc.)?

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2003 ■ 57 Table 1. Stages of Planning for Curriculum Adaptations for Student With Disabilities in General Education Settings

Preplanning Planning General Education Teacher General and Special Education Teacher Special Education Teacher Unit Plan Analysis Planning Meeting

What are the objectives of my lessons? What are the IEP objectives for the Based on the unit analysis, what IEP * What is the purpose of the unit? included student(s)? objectives can be worked on during con- * What skills do I want students to What domain areas from the IEP can be tent area instruction? obtain? addressed in the instructional unit? What adaptations or accommodations What are the steps students must under- Does this student have characteristics will be required to work on these objec- take to complete the unit? that will require adaptations? Have I tives? * What are the component activities considered: What other supports will the general within the series of lessons? (list in * Cognitive skills education teacher need to successfully order) * Motor skills complete the activity? * Do the activities directly relate to the * Communication skills * Teaching assistant present overall objective of the unit? * Social skills * Adaptive equipment * Are the steps logically sequenced? What levels of adaptations from the con- * Technical support Will completion of the unit include indi- tinuum are appropriate for this student * Materials adaptations vidual and/or group activities? for different activities within the unit? * Co-teach with special education * Cooperative Learning Groups What required unit adaptations could teacher * Individual be made for this student in terms of the Are the student's IEP objectives being * Group activities following: addressed in this unit in a meaningful * Individual and Group * Materials way? What learner products are expected? * Time requirements How will teachers communicate about * Written report * Oral Report * Product expectations student progress throughout the unit? * Tests * Computer Question * Informal discussion * Concept maps/graphic displays * Weekly meetings What is the time frame to complete the * Report from assistant activities for this unit? * Communication journal * Single day * Monthly How will progress toward attainment of * Weekly * Bimonthly IEP goal(s) be assessed? * Longer term What are the required materials for the activities and/or unit? * Resource materials * Class text * Computer internet * Misc. materials (school, home) How will student progress be assessed throughout the unit? * End-of-unit test * Rubric * Performance or subjective evaluation

content area unit. This stage is a Case Study of Collaborative academics, socialization, fine and gross thinking or reflection activity before a Planning motor skills, hygiene, and leisure and meeting; or the teachers could hold a Table 2 shows a case example of the face-to-face meeting to think together. Cascade of Integration Options in opera- • In the collaborative planning stage, tion, as educators implement accommo- The social integration focus the two teachers meet to determine dations for a student included in content the most appropriate integration area instruction. The example reflects the of inclusion negates the options in relation to the IEP, what plan for a student named Billy, who is opportunity for the student adaptations or accommodations will included in a sixth-grade classroom. be required, what additional supports Billy’s IEP contains instructional with disabilities to receive are needed, and how student progress objectives in a variety of domain areas, instruction in content areas. will be monitored (see Table 1). including communication, functional

58 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Table 2. Case Example of Collaborative Planning in Content Area Instruction (Social Studies)

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2003 ■ 59 Final Thoughts dents with severe disabilities (5th ed.), 31- 66. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.* Critical to the successful Inclusion of students with disabilities Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive class- application of the Cascade requires the provision of curriculum and rooms. Effective and reflective practices (4th classroom adaptations. But inclusion ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. is a well-designed IEP with does not require that the student with Salisbury, C. L., Evans, I. M., & Palombaro, M. special needs perform at a level compa- M. (1997). Collaborative problem-solving clearly stated instructional to promote the inclusion of young children rable to peers without disabilities. with significant disabilities in primary objectives. Students with disabilities may be grades. Exceptional Children, 63, 195-209. included during content area instruction Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). if teachers consider the Cascade of Teacher perceptions of Integration Options. mainstreaming/inclusion 1958-1995: A recreation. The teachers formed their research synthesis. Exceptional Children, If teachers collaborate to employ instructional plan based on Billy’s IEP 63, 59-74. such options through carefully planned objectives. The teachers collaboratively Snell, M. E., & Janney, R. (2000). Teachers’ instruction, they can include students guides to inclusive practices: Collaborative determined how they could meet many with severe disabilities in general edu- teaming. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.* of Billy’s IEP objectives within the con- cation settings in meaningful ways—for Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (2000). tent area of social studies. Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: all students. As Table 2 illustrates, the integration Paul H. Brookes*. Thomas, S. B., & Rapport, M. J. K. (1998). The option varies across the activities and References least restrictive environment: days of the instructional unit. Further, Bradley, D. F., King-Sears, M. E., & Tessier- Understanding the directions of the courts. note that the teachers considered the Switlick, D. M. (1997). Teaching students The Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 66- need for additional support to imple- in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn & 78. ment instruction (adaptive equipment, Bacon.* U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Heller, K.W. (2001). Adaptations and instruc- additional personnel, technical sup- Twenty-second annual report to Congress on tion in science and social studies. In J. L. the implementation of the Individuals with port). In this case Billy was able to work Bigge, S. J. Best, & K. W. Heller (Eds.), Disabilities Education Act. Washington, on nearly all of his IEP objectives in the Teaching individuals with physical, health, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction content area unit. The one exception is or multiple disabilities (4th ed., pp ). Upper Service No. ED 444 333) Billy’s IEP objective related to hygiene; Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.* Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, for programming related to showering V. S. (1998). Choosing outcomes and and shaving, Billy is temporarily accommodations for children (2nd ed.). removed from the general education set- Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.* ting (functional curriculum outside the Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. *To order the book marked by an asterisk (*), general classroom conducted during an (2000). Useful practices in inclusive educa- please call 24 hrs/365 days: 1-800-BOOKS- tion: A preliminary view of what experts in NOW (266-5766) or (732) 728-1040; or visit adapted physical education class). moderate to severe disabilities are saying. them on the Web at http:// As Table 2 shows, teachers used a Journal of The Association for Persons with www.clicksmart.com/teaching/. Use VISA, variety of integration options. Through Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 129-141. M/C, AMEX, or Discover or send check or the use of integration options, Billy was Janney, R., & Snell, M. E. (2000). Teachers’ money order + $4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add’l able to obtain instruction on important guide to inclusive practices: Modifying item) to: Clicksmart, 400 Morris Avenue, schoolwork. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.* Long Branch, NJ 07740; (732) 728-1040 or IEP objectives even though he did not Katsiyannis, A., Conderman, G., & Franks, D. FAX (732) 728-7080. always work on the general education J. (1995). State practices on inclusion: A social studies outcomes. Further, by national review. Remedial and Special Pamela S. Wolfe, Associate Professor, employing the Cascade of Integration Education, 16, 279-287. Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education, The Options, Billy’s teachers were able to Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educa- Pennsylvania State University, University provide Billy with the following: tional placement on the social relationships Park. Tracey E. Hall (CEC Chapter #18), • Social skills practice. of intermediate school students with severe Senior Research Scientist/Instructional • Instruction on social studies informa- disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31-47. Designer, Center for Applied Special tion. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). Technology (CAST), Peabody, Massachusetts. • Instruction on IEP objectives that The inclusive classroom. Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Address correspondence to Pamela S. Wolfe, focused on Billy’s needs. Merrill.* 212A CEDAR Building, The Pennsylvania Although this article focuses on the Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R .M. (2000). State University, University Park, PA 16802 (e- case of Billy, educators can apply the Peer interactions and sociometric status of mail: [email protected]). high school students with moderate or Cascade of Integration Options with TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 35, severe disabilities in general education most students and areas of instruction, No. 4, pp. 56-60. classrooms. Journal of The Association for throughout the school year. Critical to Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 142- Copyright 2003 CEC. the successful application of the 152. Cascade is a well-designed IEP with Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (2000). clearly stated instructional objectives. Inclusion and school restructuring. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of stu-

60 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN