Lewis Jackson

The Dynamic Relationship Between Context, Curriculum, and Student Learning: A Case for Inclusive Education as a Research-based Practice

This article used theory, historical records, and empirical research to make a case that inclusive education, in which students experience significant proportions of their day in the age-appropriate contexts and curriculum of general education, is a research-based practice with students who have extensive support needs. We begin by noting that there are regressive trends occurring in educational placements in our country and that these are causing alarm. Next, we establish guidelines for defining a useful, research-based practice. These guidelines include considering what education should be achieving for all students as a standard and using a view of scientific causality that acknowledges complexity. We then show how constructs from ecological theory and group processes theory, which provide accounts for human growth and learning, relate to location of educational services (i.e., context) and curriculum (i.e., content) decisions. Throughout this discussion, we show educating students using an inclusive education approach is supported by these constructs, whereas other widely used special education are not. We then review both historical and empirical data from institutions and schools and show that these data provide empirical support for the primary theoretical position of this article—that context, together with curriculum content, matter crucially when educating students with extensive support needs. We concluded that there is theoretical and empirical support for using general education contexts and curriculum content and for not using other contexts and curriculum content both in educating students with extensive support needs and in conducting related research.

Useful Practices in Inclusive Education: A Preliminary View of What Experts in Moderate to Severe Disabilities Are Saying.

We examined the opinions of experts in the field of moderate to severe disabilities on useful practices for inclusive education across nine categories of practices: Promoting inclusive values in the school; collaboration between general and special educators; collaboration between educators and related service providers; family involvement; choosing and planning what to teach; scheduling, coordinating, and delivering inclusive services within the school; assessing and reporting student progress on an ongoing basis; instructional strategies; and supporting students with challenging behavior. An examination of emergent themes within each category yielded a rich description of the depth and breadth of practices that are perceived by these experts as useful in promoting and sustaining successful school inclusion. Importantly, many of the identified practices require some level of educational service restructuring, including redefining the roles and functions of special education teachers, related services personnel, and classroom teachers. We also found that our sample of experts relied on sources of information other than empirical research in the development of their stores of wisdom on useful practices. Although preliminary in nature, our study contributes to the growing body of literature on inclusive education. It describes a range of practices perceived by a sample of experts to be associated with successful school inclusion. It also identifies a number of important themes that can inform future research in this area.

Defining School Inclusion for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities: What Do Experts Say?.

The term inclusion is new to special education and currently has many uses in the literature and in the field. The evolution of the term and its various uses frequently lead to confusion and miscommunication during discussions of school inclusion. This study examined how experts in the field of school inclusion for students with moderate to severe disabilities defined the term for that population at one point in time. As part of a larger study, authors of relevant literature were asked to submit their definition of school inclusion. The content of these definitions was analyzed using qualitative methodology, and 7 themes emerged: (a) placement in natural typical settings; (b) all students together for instruction and learning; (c) supports and modifications within general education to meet appropriate learner outcomes; (d) belongingness, equal membership, acceptance, and being valued; (e) collaborative integrated services by education teams; (f) systemic philosophy or belief system; and (g) meshing general and special education into one unified system. The overwhelming incorporation of the first five themes listed previously indicates that these themes cannot be viewed in isolation when defining school inclusion for students with moderate to severe disabilities. That is, unless services for students with moderate to severe disabilities reflect all of the first 5 themes, those services cannot be defined as reflecting school inclusion. Descriptive statements expanding each of the 7 themes were developed, and areas for future research and inquiry were offered related to the relation among these themes.

Involvement and Progress in the General Curriculum for Students With Extensive Support Needs: K–12 Inclusive-Education Research and Implications for the Future

Abstract Since the passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, educational services for students with extensive support needs (e.g., intellectual disability, autism, multiple ...

Perceived Needs of Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities in Rural Areas

We examined the current perspectives of service providers, administrators, and parents who are linked to the provision of special education and related services to learners with low-incidence disabilities in the United States. The purposes of the investigation were to gain information from the various respondents concerning the adequacy and availability of appropriate educational services for students with low-incidence disabilities and provide information regarding the need for additional services and supports. A detailed survey instrument that included a variety of open-ended response items was developed and mailed to the membership of two professional organizations with strong connections to rural special education. Responses indicated that the biggest areas of need were for highly qualified personnel with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of learners with low-incidence disabilities and for timely information that would support the education of these learners. Implications for how these concerns can be addressed are provided within the framework of four major functions including: information provision, teacher preparation, local school support, and research.

Multiple Perspectives on Inclusive Education: Reflections of a University Faculty

Special and general education faculty at one university articulate issues and concerns regarding inclusive education within the fields of hearing loss, learning disabilities, emotional/behavioral disorders, severe disabilities, and visual impairments, followed by reflections from a general educator. For each area, outcomes for students with disabilities are discussed within the context of historical contemporary educational placement patterns, followed by discussions of inclusion issues specific to each disability area. For the general education area, selected patterns of pull-out are reviewed, followed by a discussion of inclusion issues specific to general education. The article concludes with a synthesis of common themes, including the need for adequate classroom supports, the need to increase collaboration in schools, the need for changes in teacher preparation practices at the preservice level, and the need for special educators to become more purposefully involved in general education reform.

Elements of a Theoretical Structure that Will Support Best Practices in Communication Facilitation

Communication programming for individuals with severe disabilities often does not meet the requirements of best practices. One reason for this is that a dominant psycholinguistic model, the Dictionary + Rules model (pronounced “Dictionary plus Rules model”) provides a theoretical base that is inconsistent with best practices. In fact, the models perspective on language and communication may be sufficiently inadequate and misleading to warrant not using this model as an approach to understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying communicative behavior. An alternative model, the Context × Memory model (pronounced “Context times Memory model”) is described. This model is shown to support a view of communication and language that is consistent with emerging best practices and has new implications for language instruction. Adoption of this second model represents a paradigm shift, because this models perspective on the relationship between cognition and language differs from that of the dominant model.

What Legitimizes Segregation? The Context of Special Education Discourse A Response to Ryndak et al

Ryndak and colleagues provide a strong case that progress toward more and better access to general education is not occurring for students with intellectual disabilities. This response to their paper begins by agreeing with their assessment of our current situation, then it offers one possible reason for this state of affairs: the discourse that occurs when special education teams are planning outcomes and instruction for these students discourages the use of grade-level curriculum and general education classrooms. Part of the problem is that the discourse preserves segregation through a planning terminology that is inconsistent with how all other students in a school are assessed and described. However, it is also argued that a major property of this discourse is a misguided emphasis on “functional skills,” and that this emphasis contributes to our lack of progress in achieving access to general education curriculum and settings. A related argument is also made that the educational goal development process that typically occurs within special education discourse derives student outcomes from varied skill sources that, collectively, do not offer the structure and coherency of a real curriculum. This process, justified at least in part by interpretations of individualization, may also be impeding our movement toward greater alignment with general education for these students. A case is made for school districts establishing policies that require the use of grade-level general education curriculum with these students. Potential issues and concerns related to individualization, content standards, curriculum adaptation, and progress monitoring are discussed.

Including Students with Extensive and Pervasive Support Needs

Abstract Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, federal law has prioritized the education of students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers in the context of the general education classroom. This chapter examines the progress, and often lack thereof, with regard to educating students with extensive and pervasive support needs in inclusive settings. We examine current trends in placement, factors that contribute to those placement practices, and what IDEA says about the education of students with extensive and pervasive support needs. We examine what the research suggests happens in substantially segregated settings and then, in contrast, examine impacts and outcomes for students with extensive and pervasive support needs who are educated in inclusive settings. We also examine trends resulting from changing paradigms of disability that provide new opportunities for re-invigorating efforts to educate students with extensive and pervasive support needs in inclusive classrooms.

Book Review: Peer Support Strategies for Improving All Students' Social Lives and Learning Peer Support Strategies for Improving All Students' Social Lives and Learning . CarterE. W., CushingL. S., & KennedyC. H., Baltimore: Brookes. 2009. 140 pages,

In this resource for teachers, university instructors in teacher preparation, and other practitioners, Erik Carter, Lisa Cushing, and Craig Kennedy provide a readable, thorough, and practical guide for developing peer support networks and strategies in schools for all students, but especially for students with severe disabilities. In my experience, the guide is unique in that it takes the Btwo principle areas[ of emerging curriculum in our field, access to general education and social relationships, and binds them together within a framework of peer support processes in general education classrooms. Given that peer tutoring and related processes have developed a solid history of success across a variety of areas (Fuchs et al., 2001; McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao, 2008; Stenhoff & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2007), this book makes a timely contribution towhatweknowabout implementing peer supports. The material is organized in a sequence that parallels the stages a reader might go through in creating a viable peer support process in a school. The book begins with a chapter proposing a rationale for peer supports on the basis of the needs of inclusive education. The book then moves into the promises and the benefits of peer supports, it shows how to create peer support plans, including the selection and preparation of peers, it describes steps and activities for implementing peer supports in the classroom, and lastly it delineates processes for evaluating peer support programs. A final chapter hints at what more the field needs to know to move forward in developing the next generation of peer supports. Each of the eight chapters is packed with researchreferenced practical information, each provides examples of how to develop and implement strategies, and there are photocopiable forms for analyzing peer support needs and activities within general education classrooms. Each chapter also includes what the authors call Behind the Strategies boxes, which provide brief accounts of the legislative background supporting the recommendations of the authors, and accounts of other aspects of the support process (e.g., collaboration) that practitioners need to be considering to assure that their use of peers will be effective. The book has a number of strengths that recommend it. First, as already mentioned, the book is practical, detailing in a useful sequence, and with examples, the state of the art in creating peer supports that are integrally linked to classroom tasks and routines. The presentation of material is comprehensive, and readers of this book who are committed to creating such a process will find it to be a useful guide. A second strength is that the book’s ideas and techniques are thoroughly referenced to the research literature. Equally important, inmymind, is that there is an underlying theory in which the work is grounded; yet the theory’s presentation in text does not overwhelm the reader. For example, in discussing why peer supports work, four reasons are stated: (1) it provides individualized assistance; (2) it gives the learner more opportunities to respond; (3) it ensures immediate feedback and reinforcement; and (4) it offers opportunities to be with one’s age or grade group. In particular, one sees especially in the first three of these assertions the way peer support practices are linked to applied behavior analysis. A result (and strength) of this implicit integration of theory with practice is that the reader is offered not a potpourri but rather a cohesive set of practices, which then work well together for realizing the goal of all students learning a common curriculum. But perhaps this book’s greatest strength is that its ideas are grounded in the values and practices of contemporary inclusive education. This is not a book oriented toward the Bsocial inclusion[ of a decade ago. This book never sells students short by depicting them as less than members of the class. Rather, it asserts in every chapter that peer support is about how the teacher can employ all students in a class for cooperative and oneway support processes that both assure access to the general curriculum and create a structure that is conducive to classand school-appropriate social interactions. An especially prominent example of how this work supports inclusive education is in how the authors first describe the way schools overrely on paraprofessionals when supporting students, then they show how peers can provide an appropriate and effective alternative to the over usage of adults. Carter and colleagues, very rightly, imply urgency in the need for educators to perceive peers as offering better support options in many situations. There are only a few areas in which I wish the authors had gone into greater depth. First, I would liked to have seen more discussion of the long-term implications of using peers as supports; for example, how such activities fit into the larger group structure of a class (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1988); how friendship potentialities are impacted, certainly in the positive sense but also with acknowledgement of some risks (Van der Klift & Kunc, 1994); and how to encourage long-term reciprocity in Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2009, Vol. 34, No. 3Y4, 145–146 copyright 2010 by TASH