INCLUSION MODELS

Academia Letters, 2021

Within the United States educational system, the policy of including all individuals with and without disabilities in the classroom has been passionately debated. As far back as the middle of the 1800s, some teachers suggested that there were positives to having children with disabilities in the classroom with "normal" peers, while at the same time they acknowledged problems for these students in that setting (Osgood, 2005). Throughout most of history, the educational policy for students with disabilities has been firmly focused on exclusion of individuals with disabilities rather than inclusion into the classroom (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014). Prior to the monumental enactment of the Education for All Children Act (also known as Public Law 94-142) many states had laws in place that directly excluded most students with disabilities from attending public schools (U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, 2007). The implementation of Public Law (PL) 94-142 in 1975 required all students, no matter the disability, to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) within the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Osgood, 2005). The U.S. government did not include any specific mention of the term inclusion in the law, which has allowed flexibility in the interpretation of the process. With the addition of newer versions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the various state-level policies, inclusion is now firmly in place across the U.S. Current figures indicate that 94.9% of all students with disabilities spend at least part of their day receiving their education within the regular education setting (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). In 1990, PL 94-142 was amended and renamed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which included necessary updates to the law focusing on classroom accommodations (Osgood, 2005). In 1997, a new version of IDEA was passed that helped to

1998

Education Sciences, 2020

The purpose of this paper is to trace the historical trajectory of special education and how societal perspectives influenced the special education movement. It aims to answer if special education and inclusion have achieved their goals for all individuals, especially those with disabilities. A review of historical trends, special education laws, and key constructs showed that there were both positives and negatives aspects. It also revealed that the absence of a clear definition, standards, and objectives for inclusion and least restrictive environment is just one of the roots of the problem. Moreover, the lack of empirical studies on the effectiveness of inclusion and the lack of knowledge and awareness of the provisions of special education laws by stakeholders contribute to the issues surrounding inclusion implementation. Recommendations include that all stakeholders should have historical awareness and discriminative ability, in-depth comprehension of special education laws, and adapting the same definition, standards and clear objectives in implementing inclusion programs.

A major premise of inclusive education for students with mild-severe disabilities is to provide the skills which enable them to live, work, and participate in an integrated community of lifelong learners. Inclusive education would lead these students to greater independence and opportunity to be educated together in age appropriate general education classrooms. Three inclusion models were compared to determine which model would produce higher gains, both academically and socially in a high school multi-disability classroom. All three groups were their own control groups. Students were assigned to groups based on intellectual functioning and individual needs. Each group consisted of students that were relatively higher functioning, relatively lower functioning and students with severe needs. The settings included a general education classroom with adult/paraprofessional interaction, a general education setting with peer interactions or a small group instructional classroom with peer ...

Disability & Society, 2007

The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 2016

This research has dealt in investigating the differences between children with special needs whoare integrated into regular classes with children with special needs learning in closed special educationclasses, regarding the extent of improvement in their achievements in reading comprehension andmathematics, as well as social involvement. Twenty-nine students from the 2 nd and 3 rd grades participatedin the research (average age: 8.4 years and deviation from the norm: 0.6), all defined as students ofspecial education, 14 of whom were in the 2 nd grade (48%) and 15 of whom were in the third grade (52%).Some of the students were integrated into a parent class and others learned the basic subjects of readingcomprehension and mathematics in a special closed class, though the division was not uniformthroughout the entire research. Ten teachers also participated in the study-6 regular teachers and 4teachers of special education, 1 of whom teaches the special education class and 3 of whom teach theintegrated students. Data were collected using three types of tools: a questionnaire open to teachers of regular education toexamine their attitudes and perceptions about the differences between the educational frameworks ofthese terms of meeting the needs of children with special needs and in terms of achievement in readingcomprehension and arithmetic and the integration of social, questionnaire open to teachers of specialeducation to examine their attitudes and perceptions about differences between educational frameworksof these terms of addressing the needs of children with special needs and in terms of achievement inreading comprehension and arithmetic and their integration into the social and interviews are open tostudents in grades 2 and 3 students in two frames above questions dealt with preference learningframework, variance and degree of satisfaction of the student teaching framework where he is now.Research findings pointed to the fact that the presence of students in an integrated class helps themadvance in their own capabilities, in their social involvement and in their scholastic achievements. Theassistance and support that the students received in the integrated classes from the staff of teachersbothof regular education and of special educationimproves their scholastic achievements. It should be noted that the students expressed their desire to be integrated and continue learning in theclass with other students, and not to leave the classin order to avoid the negative stigma associated withleaving the class to learn with teachers of special education. The study shows that there is great importance to the extent of cooperation between teachers of specialeducation. and teachers of regular education. The greater the cooperation, the greater the students'achievements and social involvement. We recommend integrating more subjects for the students andorganizing advanced courses in schools on the topic of staff work, in order to discuss importantpedagogical issues to solve problems and make decisions. It is suggested that a continued research bemade in which the population of students can be expanded to include students from higher classes inschools and to integrate the parents as well. The parents' opinions and cooperation with them will enablethe school to form a clear policy in dealing with the topic of advancement of children with special needs.

2018

A major premise of inclusive education for students with mild-severe disabilities is to provide skills, which enable them to live, work, and participate in an integrated community of life-long learners. Inclusive education would lead these students to greater independence and opportunity to be educated together in age appropriate general education classrooms. Three inclusion models were compared to determine which model would produce higher gains, both academically and socially in a high school multi-disability classroom. All three groups were their own control groups. Students were assigned to groups based on intellectual functioning and individual needs. Each group consisted of students that were relatively higher functioning, relatively lower functioning and students with severe needs. The settings included a general education classroom with adult/paraprofessional interaction, a general education setting with peer interactions or a small group instructional classroom with peer di...

A focus on anything other than instruction undercuts the legal and moral rights of students with disabilities to an appropriate education and fails to produce substantive social justice. Differences among differences must be recognized to guarantee the civil educational rights to which people with disabilities are entitled. Instructionally-relevant differences include many disabilities, but they do not include such differences as skin hue, parentage, sexual orientation, national origin, and many other kinds of diversity. If special education's focus is inclusion rather than effective instruction of students with disabilities or if all differences are assumed to be equal and have the same remedy, then special education will one day be looked upon as having gone through a period of shameful neglect of students' needs.

1992

The Inclusive Education Project was a collaborative demonstration project between the Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation at Syracuse University and the Syracuse City School District, in New York. It was designed to meet special problems of children with severe handicaps in regular education settings. Project goals included: (1) develop eight demonstration sites that exemplify inclusive education models, from elementary to high school levels; (2) develop a building-level process to create or further develop a model that includes students with severe handicaps; (3) develop criteria for establishing an inclusive education model for students with severe handicaps; (4) develop a tool that can be used by districts to evaluate their integrated classroom programs; and (5) engage in a district-wide planning process that protects the integrity of the model programs and assures their continued expansion. The eight schools engaged in a building-level process that helped to clarify, further develop, and gain consensus on approaches to education that promote the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Leadership institutes were held to strengthen the commitment of administrators to inclusive education and to develop a locai network of people with expertise. and implementation materials based on the project experience were produced and disseminated. This final report provides details and project objectives, findings underlying the project approach, a description of the model and participants, a list of methodological and logistical problems, evaluation findings, and project impact. Appendices provide background materials relating to the project. (JDD)