The Impact of Inclusive Education Practices for All Students

 

Small Scale Literature Review Assignment

 

 

 

 

 

Nick LaShomb

State University of New York at Cortland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDU 510 – 601

Professor Rombach

 

May 3, 2005

 

 

 

Abstract

 

Providing an equitable and harmonious classroom for all students, regardless of disability or need, is an important issue in schools today.  Educators have the significant responsibility of teaching these students in the classroom together.  This literature review points out ways in which teachers can educate themselves on inclusion, as well as suggests techniques and practices they can utilize for the successful implementation of an inclusive classroom environment for their students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Impact of Inclusive Education Practices for All Students

 

Inclusion is one of the most important educational issues that teachers will face in their classrooms today.  “Over the last 2 decades, inclusion has become a critical part of the reform effort to improve the delivery of services to students with disabilities by focusing on the placement of these students in the general education setting” (Praisner, 2003, p.135).  By definition, inclusion, “…represents a commitment to creating schools and classrooms in which all children, regardless of individual educational needs or disabilities, are educated together” (Sapon-Shevin, 1999, p.63).  Within an inclusive classroom setting, the opportunity for discrimination and prejudice is high.  Teachers may indirectly exude an atmosphere of inequity simply because they believe that certain students should have more of an opportunity to learn than other students.  These predispositions can arise from teachers’ attitudes, feelings, perspectives, or even experiences on dealing with inclusion in the classroom.  However, they also can arise when teachers have not had any exposure to inclusive practices and are simply averse to change.  What inclusion should ultimately strive to achieve is the accommodation of all students in a classroom, both with and without “disabilities.”  Instead of teachers ignoring the abundance of differences in their classrooms, i.e., class, race, ethnicity, language, etc., they should embrace them and work to create a classroom community that values and honors those differences.  In this way, students will feel a sense of connection and bond with both their teachers and fellow classmates.  My purpose for the review of educational research for this paper was to determine the positive and negative affects of inclusion in a more in-depth and comprehensive manner.  The objective of this paper is to determine how inclusive education practices impact all students in inclusive classrooms.  

There were five articles that were examined for this small-scale literature review.  All articles shared the same topic of inclusion.  However, there were two distinct themes that emerged from the articles’ findings.  The first theme dealt with the positive and negative attitudes and perceptions that educators hold toward inclusion.  The second theme dealt with the social aspects of inclusion and whether or not an inclusive classroom setting can positively impact the social functioning of students with disabilities.  The five articles were sorted between these two themes and the comparison and connection between the articles were analyzed and explained. 

 

Educators’ Attitudes and Predispositions about Inclusion

           

The following theme emerged after reviewing the findings of three of the articles in this review:  educators appear to have a disparity of attitudes and perspectives about inclusive practices in the classroom.  Shade & Stewart (2001) illustrated that the completion of an introductory course to Special Education can vastly improve the attitudes of general education and special education preservice teachers toward inclusion.  Shade & Stewart (2001) reported that only 40 states require a Special Education course on exceptionalities for all general education preservice teachers.  Furthermore, “…of [these researchers’] national survey respondents, only 33.5% reported that field experience was required in addition, and only 19.8% reported that a second course was required” (Shade & Stewart, 2001, p.38).  These percentages equate to an extremely small amount of mandatory preparation for, and exposure to, Special Education before preservice teachers enter the classroom.  This lack of exposure can be correlated as a direct cause of preservice teachers’ feelings of anxiety, frustration, or inadequacy toward teaching children with disabilities.  Furthermore, it has been, “…documented that teachers desire training prior to receiving students with disabilities in their classrooms” (Shade & Stewart, 2001, p.38).  Therefore, it is understandable that by taking a course that introduces the concepts and procedures of Special Education in the classroom, preservice teachers’ attitudes could positively change.  Therefore, this study’s results are extremely important for assuaging the negative feelings that preservice teachers hold toward inclusive practices.  Additionally, the results of this study are also important, “…in light of the fact 10 states still do not require a course in special education, even though more than 80% of students with mild disabilities receive their public school instruction in the general education classroom” (Shade & Stewart, 2001, p.39).  Clearly, the success of implementing inclusive educational practices in the classroom lies heavily with teachers’ attitudes.  However, by exposing preservice teachers to a course that describes and teaches the facets of Special Education, their negative preconceptions about inclusion can be dispelled and appeased.

            Findings from Praisner (2003) parallel Shade & Stewart (2001) in the sense that the more experience and training educators had with inclusive practices, the more positive their attitudes were toward inclusion.  Praisner (2003) studied the attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom.  She developed a Principals and Inclusion Survey (PIS) that, “…was designed to determine the extent to which variables such as training, experience, and program factors were related to principals’ attitudes” (Praisner, 2003, p.136).  Although the majority of respondents (76.6%) scored within an uncertain range on the survey, i.e., not strongly positive or negative about inclusion; she found that a significant positive correlation existed between principals’ experience with inclusion and their attitudes towards it.  That is, the more positive principals’ overall experiences were with children with disabilities, as well as the more inservice and special education training hours they had completed, directly correlated to heightened positive attitudes toward inclusion.  Additionally, Praisner (2003) found significant positive relationships between principals’ attitudes and experiences toward inclusion and the level of restriction that children with disabilities would be placed in.  That is, principals with positive attitudes toward inclusion would choose to place students with disabilities in more inclusive placements with less restrictive settings.  Clearly, the attitudes and predispositions that principals have toward inclusion can directly and severely impact the placement of students with disabilities. 

 

As the leader in the school, the principal directly influences resource allocations, staffing, structures, information flows, and operating processes that determine what shall and shall not be done by the organization.  Due to their leadership position, principals’ attitudes about inclusion could result in either increased opportunities for students to be served in general education or in limited efforts to reduce the segregated nature of special education services.  Therefore for inclusion to be successful, first and foremost, the school administrator must display a positive attitude and commitment to inclusion.  (Praisner, 2003, p.136).

 

The results of this study are extremely important for revealing the effects that principals’ attitudes can have on the successful inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom.  Inclusion should be included as mandatory curriculum in preparation and inservice training for principals.  Additionally, when school districts hire and/or evaluate principals, that principal’s attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion should weigh heavily in the districts’ decision-making process.  “As shown in this study, exposure to special education concepts through special education credits and inservice training were related to a more positive attitude toward inclusion” (Praisner, 2003, p.141).  This statement directly connects with Shade & Stewart’s (2001) findings on educators’ attitudes toward inclusion in the sense that providing educators with training and information on inclusion can lead to positive attitudes on the subject.

            McLeskey, Waldron, So, Swanson & Loveland (2001) compares to Shade & Stewart (2001) and Praisner (2003) in the sense that the perspectives of educators who were teaching in an inclusive classroom environment, “…had significantly more positive perspectives regarding inclusion than did the teachers who were not employed in inclusive programs” (McLeskey, Waldron, So, Swanson, & Loveland, 2001, p.108).  McLeskey et al. (2001) utilized the Inclusive School Program (ISP) Survey to investigate and compare the perspectives of teachers who were currently teaching in an inclusive classroom environment (the inclusion group) with teachers who were not (the non-inclusion group).  The survey included 30 survey items that addressed, “…the major issues from the [Regular Education Initiative Teacher Survey (REITS)] related to teacher perspectives on inclusion of students with mild disabilities” (McLeskey et al., 2001, p.111).  Of these 30 items, the two groups of teachers significantly disagreed on 12 items.  Some of these differences related to non-inclusion teachers feeling that their schools were not ready, or lacked the resources, for the successful implementation of an inclusive school program.  Additionally, the non-inclusion group held pessimistic views about team-teaching with special education teachers, the benefits that students would receive in an inclusive classroom atmosphere, as well as the role special education teachers would play in providing support for all students in a general education classroom.  Also, the non-inclusion group considerably differed from the inclusion group when asked about whether they felt students’ parents would be supportive of inclusion; teachers from the inclusion group were twice as likely to feel parents would be supportive.  Clearly, the non-inclusion group possessed significantly higher levels of negativity and cynicism toward inclusion.  When analyzing these teachers’ negative responses, “…it is important to note that much of this research has been conducted with teachers who were not currently teaching in inclusive programs” (McLeskey et al., 2001, p.108).  Therefore, it is fair to conclude that these negative responses could have been influenced, in part, by either the teachers’ lack of experience with inclusion, or their resistance to change in their classroom or school setting.  It is evident that teachers who have not been exposed to inclusion hold deep concerns about its successful implementation, as well as an understandable caution regarding change.  However, this should not be construed to mean that these educators are averse to inclusive practices in the classroom. 

 

To further support this point, it is noteworthy that the non-inclusion and inclusion groups did not differ significantly on item #27 of the ISP Survey, which addressed whether students with disabilities have a basic right to receive their education in the general education classroom.  Only 20 percent of the non-inclusion group and 10 percent of the inclusion group disagreed with this statement.  This reflects very strong support on the part of both groups for the concept of inclusion.  (McLeskey et al., 2001, p.114).

 

The results of this study reveal an important viewpoint of teachers who have had little experience with inclusion.  For these teachers, exposure to, and experience with, inclusion is a key factor that can aim to promote supportive and positive perspectives and attitudes toward inclusive classroom practices.  This study’s findings directly correlate with the Prasiner (2003) article in the sense that educators’ lack of experience with inclusion can have an adverse affect on their attitudes and predispositions on the subject.

            Through the analysis of the three aforementioned studies, it can clearly be seen that educators’ attitudes toward inclusion is directly correlated with their experience and exposure of the subject.  By providing educators with informative and educational venues to learn about inclusion, i.e., through an introductory course, inservice training, or an introduction to inclusive experiences, educators can develop positive and optimistic attitudes toward inclusion, while at the same time, becoming advocates of its implementation.  The similarities in the findings of these three studies may suggest that not providing these educational venues for educators could result in the detriment of educational quality bestowed upon children with disabilities.  In each study, participants held negative and cynical attitudes and perspectives about inclusion; some without ever even dealing with it in the classroom.  By providing teachers with the empowerment to embrace inclusion for themselves through knowledge and experience, students with disabilities will experience a positive and significant impact.  The alternative is unfortunately distressing to imagine.

 

Social Development of Students with Disabilities

           

The following theme emerged after reviewing the findings of the two remaining articles in this review:  it is not enough to improve the social functioning of students with disabilities by merely integrating them in a general education classroom; additional supports must be put into place to advance their social acceptance.  Doré, Dion, Wagner, & Brunet (2002) illustrated that although there was a slight increase in social interaction of students with mental retardation (MR) and their regular-class peers due to inclusion, the overall social integration was unsatisfactory.  The reduction of marginality is one of the major objectives of high school inclusion.  Certainly, the liberalism on the part of general education students to embrace and befriend students with disabilities is an influential factor for the successful social integration of these students into the general education classroom.  However, marginality is a sensitive topic that most high schools students feel hesitant interacting and dealing with.  In a questionnaire study given to high school students, which was stated in this article, most, “…adopted a moral point of view, stating that they felt it was their duty to make an effort to become friends with adolescents with MR so that their social isolation might be reduced” (Doré et al., 2002, p.254).  The findings of this study parallel others, which showed that, “…interactions between students with MR and their classmates are often brief and superficial, frequently amounting to no more than a simple ‘hello’” (Doré et al., 2002, p.259).  Many different variables could have played a role in this study’s findings, including the fact that both girls were transferred in the middle of the school year, which would make social integration challenging for any student to achieve.  Additionally, Doré et al. (2002) found that inclusion alone may not be adequate in producing successful social integration; they suggested implementing, “…[c]omplementary strategies…such as circle of friends or social skills training” (Doré et al., 2002, p.259).  Furthermore, the authors concluded that in order to reduce the risk that integrated students attain social isolation, it is imperative to ensure that students with disabilities have the opportunity to interact with a multitude of different people following their inclusion, including other students with MR.  The findings of this study are important for understanding that inclusion itself is not enough to positively impact the social development of students with disabilities.  Educators need to not only find complementary measures that will serve to enhance and develop the social skills of these students, but also at the same time, expose them to a variety of people that will strive to extend and augment their social acceptance and belonging amongst their peers.

            Findings from Doré et al. (2002) mirrored findings from Pavri & Luftig (2000) in the sense that they suggested that, “…merely placing students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms is not sufficient to allow for their social inclusion and that other supports need to be in place to facilitate their acceptance and belonging in the peer group” (Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.12).  The authors investigated the perceived loneliness, social competence, and social status of sixth-grade students with learning disabilities in an inclusive classroom setting.  They hypothesized that by placing these students in an inclusive setting, their social functioning would be positively affected.  Unfortunately, there were no differences found. 

 

In the present study, it appears that the loneliness of the students with learning disabilities was realistic and related to their diminished social status.  The findings suggest that the students with learning disabilities were less likely to be popular than their peers without disabilities and thus less likely to be nominated for social activities by peers.  (Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.12). 

 

These findings are important because they suggest that students with disabilities that are placed in inclusive classrooms can still feel unaccepted and lonely by their peers.  Pavri & Luftig (2000) recommend that in addition to an inclusive classroom setting, there also needs to be different types of support in place for these students that can both facilitate and work to develop their social skills.  One such type is teacher support.  “There is a clear need for teacher preparation programs to address the social acceptance of students with disabilities in the general education classroom and to provide teachers with strategies needed to facilitate the social functioning of all their students” (Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.13).  Additionally, the authors stated that providing deliberate and dynamic coaching for these students would help them learn the social behaviors that lead to acceptance.  These findings are directly correlated with Doré et al.’s (2002) findings in the sense that an inclusive classroom setting by itself does not appear to be sufficient enough to advance the social development of students with disabilities.

            Through the analysis of these two articles on the social development of students with disabilities, it can clearly be seen that the implementation of additional types of measures and support is both vital and necessary for the successful advancement of students’ social development.  Educators need to be cognizant of the fact that students with disabilities may often possess delays in their social development, which parallel the delays in their academic achievement.  Often these delays, coupled with more aggressive and negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors may, “…result in students with disabilities having fewer friends than their peers without disabilities as well as their being actively rejected by peers” (Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.8).  This rejection may cause students to feel ignored and less esteemed, which can further lead to isolation and disconnection from their peers.  Therefore, it is crucial that educators are aware of the many outlets available for increasing students’ feelings of social competence, i.e., social skills training, teacher support, or coaching.  Implementing and instilling these different types of support, along with the utilization of an inclusive classroom environment, would successfully attain the advancement of social development of students with disabilities.

 

Summary

 

            The findings from the five articles in this literature review expressed two clear points.  The first point is that the attitudes and predispositions that educators possess about inclusion can have a direct and severe impact on the quality of education bestowed upon students.  The second point is that an inclusive classroom setting by itself is not enough to successfully evolve the social development of students with disabilities; other support systems must be in place to aid in this progression.  The goal of this paper was to determine different inclusive education practices and examine how they impact all students in inclusive classrooms.  Findings from the studies examined aided greatly in pursuing this objective.  It is crucial that educators are mindful of their attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and even thoughts about inclusion so that they are able to self-examine themselves and strive to teach all students equitably; not doing so could result in the gross neglect of educational value bequeathed to students.  Additionally, the social skills that students possess are the foundation for their ability to connect and build relationships with their peers.   These skills, or lack there of, can have a severe affect on students’ feelings of happiness, confidence and self-esteem.  Educators need to be aware of the many support systems available that will strive to improve these skills for students with disabilities.  This is vital for their augmented social development.

 

 

References

 

 

Doré, R., Dion, É., Wagner, S., & Brunet, J.P. (2002). High school inclusion of adolescents with mental retardation: A multiple case study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37 (3), 253-61.

 

McLeskey, J., Waldron, N., So, T., Swanson, K., & Loveland, T. (2001). Perspectives of teachers toward inclusive school programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24 (2), 108-115.

 

Pavri, S., & Luftig, R. (2000). The social face of inclusive education: Are students with learning disabilities really included in the classroom? Preventing School Failure, 45 (1), 8-14.

 

Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69 (2), 135-45. 

 

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world:  A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

 

Shade, R., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46 (1), 37-41.