Inclusion: A Broken Promise?
By Nancy Salvato (01/27/04)
I am certified to teach public school students up to the 12th grade. In order to teach kids in grades 6-12, I must have a major or a minor in a particular subject. If I don’t have the qualifications I won’t be eligible to teach at that grade level. It’s as simple as that.
As a matter of fact, even though I am already a teacher of middle school students and have a M Ed in Education, I will be considered unqualified to teach middle school according to the more stringent standards of NCLB if I do not take two courses in middle school to understand the nature of the kids with whom I am charged.
Now contrast this with what is expected of me when a student is mainstreamed- nothing. Can this be true, you are thinking? I will have taken one more course to be qualified in middle school than is required of me to teach a special needs student. This can’t be right, say you? Yep, it’s true. Is this an acceptable situation? That’s another story.
According to “Educating Children with Autism” (2001), published by The National Academy of Sciences, “children with autistic disorders…offer unique challenges to families, teachers, and others who work with them. Their deficits in nonverbal and verbal communication require intense effort and skill even in the teaching of basic information. The unique difficulties in social interaction may require more individual guidance than for other children in order to attract and sustain their children’s attention. Moreover, ordinary social exchanges between peers do not usually occur without deliberate planning and ongoing structuring by the adults in the child’s environment. In addition, the frequency of behavior problems, such as tantrums and self-stimulatory and aggressive behavior, is high. The need for systematic selection of rewards for many children with autistic spectrum disorders, whose motivation or interests can be limited, requires creativity and continued effort from teachers and parents to maximize the child’s potential.”
Wow! That sounds like a lot of work. It also sounds like I would need some additional training in order to maximize an autistic child’s potential. That would be hard to do in a classroom full of kids without an aid or even one workshop on autism. Even then, I’d need some first hand experience with an autistic child to make sure that I can handle it. You’d agree? I guess that is why students in education specialize in certain grades and have areas of expertise. I am glad there are people who choose “special education” as their area of concentration. Those people have big hearts and a lot of patience. I myself am a “general education” teacher, by nature. But wait just a minute. I will be teaching “special needs” children such as those with autism because PL 942 says that these children are to be taught in the “least restrictive environment” which is widely interpreted to mean “inclusion”. It has been determined that this is what is best for everyone involved. I have to be honest, though, I’m a little uncomfortable with this. I’m not sure any general education teacher could maximize the potential of a “special needs” student unless they received further training, which would mean more than one course overview on “special needs” students. Thus far in my educational career there have not been any additional classes required of me in this area of education.
Sharon Cromwell, in an article titled Inclusion: Has It Gone Too Far, published in Education World, says “the idea that all children, including those with disabilities, should and can learn in a regular classroom has taken firm root in many school systems, although it is not specifically required by law.” In her article she states that The National Association for State Boards of Education (NASBE) strongly endorses the "full inclusion" of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. NASBE released a report which called on states to revise teacher-licensure and certification rules so that new teachers would be prepared to teach children with disabilities as well as those without disabilities. It also recommended training programs to help special educators and regular educators adapt to collaborating in the classroom. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) also supports inclusion. This author went on to say that some parents of students with disabilities feared that inclusion would result in losing special-education services and believed their children would be "dumped" into regular classrooms without appropriate support. I fear that this is what is happening in a lot of cases.
Ms. Cromwell says that schools are “mainstreaming” special needs kids into regular education classrooms but they are not taking the steps necessary to make inclusion work. The Utah Education Association suggests that it is necessary to implement the following for inclusion to work.
· adequate supports and services for the student
· well-designed individualized education programs (IEPs)
· professional development for all teachers involved, general and special educators alike
· time for teachers to plan, meet, create, and evaluate the students together
· reduced class size based on the severity of the student needs
· professional skill development in the areas of cooperative learning, peer tutoring, adaptive curriculum, varied learning styles, etc.
· collaboration between parents, teachers and administrators
· sufficient funding so that schools will be able to develop programs for students based on student need instead of the availability of funding, or lack thereof"
To be sure, federal law still requires that a full continuum of placement options be available to each special education student and that placement decisions be made by the Individual Education Program (IEP) team, based on the student's needs. But as you can see, inclusion is the norm.
In Educating Children With Autism it says, “While successful participation in regular classroom is an important goal for some children with autistic spectrum disorders, the usefulness of placement in regular education classes as an outcome measure is limited, because placement may be related to many variables other than the characteristics of the child (e.g., prevailing trends in inclusion, availability of other services).” They are of the opinion that, “States should have regional resource and training centers with expertise in autistic spectrum disorders to provide training and technical support to local schools.” They also say that, “States should have clearly defined minimum standards for personnel in educational settings for children with autistic spectrum disorders…at a minimum, teachers should have some special preparation and should have well-trained, experienced support personnel available to provide ongoing training and additional consultation.” Teachers of autistic children must be familiar with theory and research concerning “best practice”, as well as have multiple exposures, opportunity to practice, and active involvement in learning about autism to become proficient in an inclusion classroom and meet the needs of an autistic child.
In my experience, a teacher faced with inclusion does not normally receive extra training or support. Most of the time the teacher is told to modify the lesson plans for the class to meet the needs of the individual students. Aids are a luxury and expensive. Schools prefer teachers to be self sufficient and not have too many needs or demands. A needy or vocal teacher is a teacher that might not see a renewed contract. But that’s another story for another day.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Nancy Salvato
