FULL INCLUSION is NOT the best educational setting for all students.

1. FULL INCLUSION is NOT the best educational setting for all students. By: Kim Carr Kelly Castino Sharon Jimenez Missy Glavey-Labedz

2. Full Inclusion • “All students with disabilities are placed in their neighborhood schools in general education classrooms for the entire day; general education teachers have the primary responsibility for students with disabilities” (Hallahan, Kauffman & Pullen, 2009) • regardless of disability or severity • all services must be taken to the child in that setting Hallahan, Daniel, Kauffman, James and Pullen, Paige. (2009) Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education (11th ed.)Boston: Pearson.

3. IDEOLOGY vs. EVIDENCE • “There are no comparative data available on special education students' academic gains, graduation rates, preparation for post-secondary schooling, work, or involvement in community living based on their placement in inclusive vs. non-inclusive settings.” (WEAC, 2007 ) • “The strongest argument for full inclusion comes from its philosophical/moral/ethical base. The selling points are emotionally powerful.” (Thompkins & Deloney, 1995) • “Total inclusion of all children is idealistic and unrealistic.” (Evans & Lunt, 2002) • Does Full Inclusion Violate Federal Law?

4. Success in Special Education Setting

5. RESPONSIBLE INCLUSION • Disability is a broad concept – this is not a homogeneous group of people. • In order to meet the complex, diverse educational needs of all students, a full array of placement and service delivery options must be available. (Hatlen, 2002) • “First ask, what does this child need? Then ask, what is the least restrictive environment?” (Henteleff, 2004)

6. The Classroom • As mentioned full inclusion is based upon the idea that all students, regardless of the level or type of disability, should be educated entirely in the same general education classrooms as their same-age peers. • Such a policy is very different from the belief of least restrictive environment (LRE) as written in the law. • LRE mandates choosing the least restrictive place to educate a student in which he or she can receive an appropriate education

7. The full inclusion classroom would include such a wide range of abilities that teacher-led, whole-group instruction would simply be impossible. • Teacher-led, small group instruction would not be possible either, given enough diversity in the classroom. • Once full inclusion is implemented, teachers are forced to change their teaching methods to more; • child-directed • discovery-oriented • project-based learning • Not only must the teacher deal with students who have not yet learned to read, but also with students who have not yet learned to speak. • Children with disabilities should have their needs assessed individually and be placed in settings that will provide them with the best training for life

8. Meeting the Educational needs • General Education curriculum is grade appropriate • Special Education students have an IEP- Individualized Education Plan • IEP includes goals and objectives • Related services Curriculum needs to be modified to fit the needs of special education students.

9. Addressing behaviors in the classroom • Teachers may not be trained to handle certain behaviors. • Behaviors may be distracting to other students. • Implementing a behavior plan • Behaviorist create behavior plan • Staff needs to be trained how to address and treat the behaviors

10. General Education Teachers not able to give Intensive Instruction • According to research by Zigmond (2003), students need more support than the general education teacher can provide in order to succeed, even with the help of an aide, a student might need more focused and rigorous attention to content (Hallahan, Kauffman, and Pullman, 2009, 56)

11. Too much demand on general education teachers • According to Sigmond (2003) full inclusion puts too much demand on the general education teacher (Hallahan, Kauffman and Pullman, 2009, 59). • Since the non-disabled kids might also need help, it thins out the time that the teacher can spend with each student. • The teacher also most likely will have to spend extra time with the child with the disability and have less time with the other children.

12. REFERENCES • Alberto,P.A.& Troutman,A.C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Saddle River NJ: Pearson • Baker,L. (2000). Information avenue archives,Inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.specialchild.com/archives • Crawford, Donald B. Full Inclusion:One Reason for Opposition. Retrieved fromhttp://my.execpc.com/~presswis/inclus.html • Evans, J. & Lunt, I. (2002) Inclusive Education: Are there limits? European Journal of Special Needs Education 17(1) pp.1-14. • Hallahan,D., Kauffman, J. and Pullen, P. (2009) Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education (11th ed.)Boston: Pearson.

13. REFERENCES CONTINUED. . . • Hatlen, P. (2002) Responsible Inclusion Belongs in an Array of Placement Options, retrieved from www.tsbvi.edu/Education/inclusion.htm • Henteleff, Y. (2004) The Fully Inclusive Classroom is only One of the Right Ways to Meet the Best Interests of the Special Needs Child, presented to C.A.C.L. National Summit on Inclusive Education. • Palmer, D.S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., and Nelson, M. (2001) “Taking Sides: Parent’s views on inclusion for their children with severe disabilities.” Exceptional Children, 67, 467-484 from Hallahan, Kauffman, and Pullman, 2009, 57) • Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007. Retrieved from www.weac.org/Issues_Advocacy/Resource_Pages_On_Issues_One/Special_Education/special_education_inclusion.aspx