Chapter Presentation by Leslie Mozulay ABA 553- Assessing Autism Interventions Summer Session A 2012- Dr. Kenneth Reev

1. CONTROVERSIAL THERAPIES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIESFad, Fashion, and Science in Professional PracticeJohn W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, and James A. MulickCHAPTER 8The Delusion of Full InclusionDevery R. Mock and James M. Kauffman Chapter Presentation by Leslie Mozulay ABA 553- Assessing Autism Interventions Summer Session A 2012- Dr. Kenneth Reeve

2. BACKGROUND • 1975 – U.S. Legislation The Education for All Handicapped Children Act which gives all children regardless of disability the right to a free public education. • later referred to as Public Law 94-142 • 1990 version of this law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), started an "inclusion movement" which recommends that no child be assigned to a special classroom or be segregated into another part of the school

3. I N C L U S I O N • DOES IT WORK? • IF SO, HOW? • IF NOT, WHY NOT?

4. INCLUSION vs. FULL INCLUSION • Inclusion: educating disabled children part timein regular classrooms • Full inclusion: educating disabled children full time in regular classrooms • no time outside regular classrooms • always learn in an environment not tailored for the disabled • expected to keep up with the pace of non-disabled studentsRead more: Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD

5. Consideration of F U L L I N C L U S I O N from the viewpoint of . . .

6. INCLUSION IN ACTIONFOR AND AGAINST http://www.google.com/search?q=inclusion+classroom&hl=en&domains=seab.envmed.rochester.edu&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2zjBT8KZA4i06gG4wOC0Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CGUQsAQ&biw=866&bih=573

7. Dr. Alan Harchik of the May Institute for Children with Autism says, "It is unrealistic to expect that regular education teachers will always have the specific training...be aware of the latest research, or be able to readily adapt the school's curriculum." “Thus, children with disabilities need a supplementary class and teacher who can deal with these issues.”Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD

8. VIDEO Teachers Network "INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLezaO949TE&feature=related

9. RECAP VIDEO INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade

10. RECAP OF VIDEO INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade • means special education as well general education are taught by two teachers all day long • collaborative team teaching • small and large groups for smaller teacher to student ratio • differentiated instruction • modified and enriched curriculum • sense of community allows all children to learn and grow together • philosophy--- all deserve to learn in LRE • honors all learning styles • opportunity to learn all people are different • all have different strengths • all need different things to do our best • fair is not always equal • and anyone can learn from anyone else

11. REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE of the 1980s • forerunner of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT • elimination of the necessity of special education for at least many, if not most (Dunn,1968;Deno,1970) • assumptions included • all students are very much alike • many or most students with disabilities can be taught by regular classroom teachers (Kavale & Forness, 2000)

12. FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT of the 1990s • complete elimination of special education as a separate entity (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994) • assumption that normalizing influence of the general education classroom is more important and powerful than specialized, therapeutic interventions, even in the face of evidence that separate, special environments produce better outcomes for some students (e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).

13. Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS • Cost factors • Separation from mainstream and Self Esteem • Misidentification of students • Quality of services • Continuum of alternative placements • Policy making

14. COSTS of Special Education As more students with disabilities can be served in general education classes by regular teachers, FIMsaves on cost for • space (separate classes) • staff (special teachers) • intensified instruction (lower pupil-teacher ratios) (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)

15. Full Inclusion Movement’s concern with SELF ESTEEM • self-esteem of students is damaged with separation • “segregating” special education students in homogenous groupings in self-contained programs is a disadvantage (Monk and Kauffman, 2005)

16. Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKSMISIDENTIFICATION and QUALITY OF SERVICES of special education students Concerns with students not being able to reach their true potential because • disabilities are not properlydefined • instructional practices are fragmented • teachers have low expectations and poor training • students are separated from the mainstream (Alexander, Gray, & Lyon, 1993; Lyon & Fletcher, 2001; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996, 1997, 1998; McGill-Franzen, 1994; Slavin, 2001; Slavin & Madden, 2001a, 2001b)

17. Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKSContinuum of Alternative Placements (CAP) • CAP focuses on “free appropriate public education” • CAP includes instruction in general education, special education, special schools, home instruction, hospital, institutions • CAP stresses Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) • CAP requires provision for supplementary services • CAP promotes opportunities for student to interact with peers who are nondisabled, to the extent appropriate

18. To accomplish FULL INCLUSION • Lipsky and Gartner (1997) suggested, “ use of instructional strategies that experienced and qualified teachers use for all children.” • COOPERATIVE LEARNING • CURRICULAR ADAPTATIONS • MODIFICATIONS • ACCOMMODATIONS • WHOLE LANGUAGE

19. COOPERATIVE LEARNING

20. COOPERATIVE LEARNING • 12 studies were reviewed by Tateyama-Sniezek (1990) INDEPENDENT VARIABLE= cooperative learning DEPENDENT VARIABLE= academic achievement • OVER 10 YEARS LATER completion of another literature review by McMaster and Fuchs (2002)

21. CONCLUSIONregarding COOPERATIVE LEARNING NO GUARANTEE of academic gains . . . “the use of empirically supported cooperative elements may be an important, but NOT A SUFFICIENT, determinant of cooperative learning’s effectiveness, specifically for student with LD.” (Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p. 118)

22. The authors state . . . “Why would we expect classmates to be better at helping LD students learn than professional teachers using an empirically validated curriculum?” (Mock & Kauffman, p. 118)

23. CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS Diana Browning Wright with permission from Jeff Sprague, Ph.D. from an original by DeSchenes, C., Ebeling, D., & Sprague, J. (1994). Adapting Curriculum & Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms: A Teachers Desk Reference. ISDDCSCIPublication. NOTE: Diana Browning Wright, Teaching & Learning 2003- Positive Environments-Network of Trainers (PENT) Director/School Psychologist/Behavior Analyst

24. CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS • Accommodations • Modifications

25. ADAPTATIONS

26. EXAMPLES

27. CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS used in response to problems for students with mild to severe disabilities can be seen as Quack remedies Not cure-alls Weak, stress reducing treatments (Worrall, 1990)

28. What Full Inclusion Movement advocates fail to see . . . • how EFFECTIVE, if at all, an adaptation may be • that perhaps “separate or different objectives for one or a few students can lead to their isolation or segregation” (Stainbeck et. al., 1996). • that adaptations can be made in an indiscriminate manner (questioning validity of adaptation and instruction) • that a student may NOT be ENGAGED in the learning process with an adaptation aimed at alarge group and being inappropriate for an individual

29. 1980s WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHin FULL INCLUSION CLASSROOMS • abandons specific skill instruction - decoding written language • focuses on reading process as a whole- reading as using language • rejects value of quantitative evidence of effectiveness • adopted in absence of any credible evidence of itsefficacy(Adams, 1995; Slaving, 2001)

30. After implementation of WHOLE LANGUAGE • RESULTS of 1992 and 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress • more than 40% of fourth graders were unable to read grade-appropriate texts (Adams, 1997) • no sufficient evidence to warrant use with students with or without disabilities (Mock & Kauffman, 2005)

31. Delusion of Full Inclusion A mainstream FULL INCLUSION setting • downplays need for specific instruction • holds out the false hope that the Full Inclusion Movement will result in better instruction for students with disabilities while undercutting fiscal support for special education. (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)

32. Monk and Kauffman (2005) indicate the “delusion of full inclusion” includes at least one of the following assumptions, if not all of them: • If all students receive instruction in the same setting, they will receive the same opportunities to learn. • Fair treatment of students with disabilities can be achieved only when the students are in the same place as student without disabilities. • Students with disabilities should be treated like all other students. (see Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000, p. 67, for the last statement of the last assumption)

33. THOSE FOR FULL INCLUSION ignore and misinterpret research findings (Kauffman, 1989; Monk & Kauffman, 2005)

34. “pseudoscience” • Does Full Inclusion claim itself as a scientific revolution? • Does Full Inclusion withstand careful scrutiny? (Sherman, 2001)

35. “noxious delusion” • changing the place in which teaching is preferred • use of a “mainstream” setting • considered by proponents of Full Inclusion Movement as “theplace to be” • better than what is or can be offered in a separate, special setting (e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).

36. The Full Inclusion Movement fits criteria forfraud or quackery: • contrary to common sense • inconsistent with what we know about disabilities • lacking credible supporting evidence Worrall (1990) ; (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 113)

37. WHAT ABOUT R E S E A R C Hsupporting OPPOSITION to the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT ?

38. OPPOSITION to the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT • “delivery of specialized intervention services within regular classrooms highly problematic” (Walker & Bullis 1991,p. 84). • effective teaching of a child is delayed or denied by the placement (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Palmer, Fuller, Arora, & Nelson, 2001). • problematic behavior triggers include • interaction with peers • unpredictable reinforcement schedules • environments filled with desks, chairs, books, and many other objects (Jacobson, Foxx, Mulick, 2005, p. 115)

39. OPPOSITION toFULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT • educational practice changes in the absence of empirical support have proven harmful to student progress (Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p 119). • the Full Inclusion Movement is seen as harmful when there are no special education programs for students with severe disabilities (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995)

40. PARENTAL VIEWPOINTS Parents of children with severe disabilities found general education to be unhelpful for their children. (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998, 1999).

41. Mother of a child with autism . . . in a G.E. classroom “so much is counterintuitive in the treatment of autism that her son Daniel’s general education teachers often hinder rather than help him learn to cope with his classroom environment.” Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p 180).

42. Parent of two children with disabilities . . . considered “mainstreaming as something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Like any other fad, it is being evangelized as a cure-all. It isn’t. It is terrific in some cases. In others, it is child abuse.” (Palmer, et. al. 2001, p. 482)

43. STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION The Delusion of Full Inclusion authors make reference to Seymour Sarason’s (2001) parallel comparison between society’s initial responses to the virus that causes AIDS with the ignorance and irrelevant claims made in relationship to the Full Inclusion Movement.

44. Seymour Sarason’s Comparison

45. NONSEQUITUR-does not follow logically from anything previously said . . . Advocates of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT argue for policies unchecked by empirical science. . . “Without a properly rendered research base, policy analysis becomes policy advocacy because reason alone and the influence of values goes unchecked” (Kavale, Fuchs, and Sruggs, 1994) “Argument unaccompanied by reliable scientific evidence is simply propaganda.” (Sasso, 2001)

46. OVERSIMPLIFICATIONwith ADVOCATES for theFULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT seeing it as a moral matter of civil rights and likening current special education placement options to racial segregation, apartheid and slavery. OPPONENTS of the Full Inclusion Movement state Special Education and matters such as these “are built on entirely different legal, moral, and educational premises.” (see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Kauffman, 2002; Kauffman & Lloyd, 1995).

47. OVERSIMPLIFICATION Schools-Students-Research • Difference of FULL INCLUSION in elementary, middle and high schools • Inclusion implementation is different at various levels • Imbalance of research • Resistance to change • Teachers • Students • Instruction (Mock & Kauffman, 2005)

48. WILLFUL IGNORANCE with research reviewed so far, the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT is based on false premises. (Mock and Kauffman, 2005)

49. WILLFUL IGNORANCE FALSE PREMISES • Inclusion in general education classes achieve better outcomes than pullout class • Separation of special education students causes them to fall further behind general education peers (Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, et al., 2001)

50. WILLFUL IGNORANCEEfficacy studies used to discredit special education practices compromised by methodological shortcomings • consistency within group membership (Ysseldykeand Bielinski, 2002) as well as, • control for teacher effects • established criterion level of instructional performance • use of standardized measures • use of same measures between pretest and posttest • control for sample heterogeneity • use of the correct unit of analysis • reported inflated treatment outcomes • reported unreliable treatment outcomes (Simmermanand Swanson, 2001)