• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Sped Presentation2

Sped Presentation2






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Sped Presentation2 Sped Presentation2 Presentation Transcript

    • What is Inclusion?
        • Full or part-time placement of students with disabilities in the same school or classroom they would attend if they were not disabled
        • (Alper, 1997, p.6)
    • So…what’s “full inclusion”?
      • Inclusion without exception
      • The notion that LRE is always the mainstream classroom
      • All supports and services must be taken to that child in the mainstream setting
      • Extremely controversial topic (Evans, 2002, p. 1)
    • Full Inclusion or Total Delusion? (qtd. in Hornby, 1997, p. 68)
      • “ The history of the twentieth century for disabled people has been one of exclusion. The twenty-first century will see the struggle of disabled people for inclusion go from strength to strength. In such a struggle, special, segregated education has no role to play”
      • -M. Oliver Understanding Disability (1996)
      • “… full inclusion can provide only an illusion of support for all students, an illusion that may trick many into jumping on the bandwagon…[S]pecial education is in danger of riding the bandwagon called ‘full inclusion’ to its own funeral.”
      • -J.M. Kauffman, The Illusion of Full Inclusion (1995)
    • Key Concepts of Inclusion
      • Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
        • Special Ed. provided at public expense in conformity with the IEP
        • Appropriate varies from student to student
      • Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
        • “ To the maximum extent appropriate ” SwD educated in general education classrooms
        • Restrictiveness a measure of “proximity to, and communication with the ordinary flow of persons in society” (qtd. in Yell, 2006, p. 310)
      • FAPE vs. LRE...which wins?
        • School’s primary obligation is to FAPE
        • IEP team selects LRE most compatible with FAPE
    • Key Concepts of Inclusion (continued…)
      • Supplementary Aids and Services
        • Modification of the GenEd classroom for the inclusion of SwD
        • Ensures accessibility of information and equal participation for all
        • Key to meeting LRE
      • Continuum of Service
        • Continuum of alternative placements available to students with disabilities
        • Arranged from least to most restrictive
    • The Continuum of Services GenEd GenEd w/consultation GenEd with part-time assistance Part day in Special Ed classes Full day in Special Ed classes Special Ed School Homebound Placement
    • LRE , Inclusion , and Mainstreaming …oh my!
        • SwD entitled to education with peers w/o disabilities “to the maximum extent appropriate” (IDEA)
        • Not a setting
        • Placement of SwD in general education setting with peers w/o disabilities
      Somewhat dated, less comprehensive program than inclusion Inclusion/mainstreaming sometimes LRE, but not always!
      • Not IDEA
      • Synonymous in court
      • Narrower than LRE
      Least Restrictive Environment Mainstreaming Inclusion
    • History of Inclusion Paradigm
      • Before 1960s
        • SPED = segregation
      • 1960s
        • Civil rights movement— integration
        • 1968 L.M. Dunn article spearheads SPED integration
      • 1970s
        • EAHCA 1975 promises LRE
        • Part-time inclusion prevails
      • 1980s
        • REI movement – “Good teachers can teach to all students”
        • Limited full-time inclusion of high-incidence disabilities (LD, EBD, etc.)
      • 1990s
        • Full inclusion movement— full-time inclusion for all
      Hornby, 1997, p. 69; Kavale et al., 2000, p. 281
    • Why Inclusion?
        • Educational Beliefs
        • All students can learn regardless of disability (diversity trumps difference)
        • All students learn through participation with and modeling of competent peers
        • All classrooms can be equipped to support all students
      (Alper, 1995, p. 6-16; Taylor, 2006, p. 50; Hornby, 1997, p. 69)
    • Why Inclusion?
        • Social Outcomes
        • Improve self-esteem and social skills of students with disabilities
        • Improve academic achievement of students with disabilities
        • Challenge stereotypes of students without disabilities
        • Reduce disproportionality in special education
        • Reduce stigma attached to special education
        • Promote greater individualization for all GenEd students (UDL)
      (Alper, 1995, p. 6-16; Taylor, 2006, p. 50; Hornby, 1997, p. 69)
    • Why Inclusion?
        • Other Beliefs…
        • Cost effective
      (Alper, 1995, p. 16; Hornby, 1997, p. 81) $$$ Or is it…?
    • Objections to Full Inclusion
      • Rhetoric over reason
      • Emotion over evidence
      • Advocacy for programs over advocacy for children
      • Savings over services
      Hornby, 1997, p. 76-79; Kavale et al., 2000, 279-283
    • Obstacles to Full Inclusion in GenEd Classroom
      • Lack of teacher motivation (NIMBY)
        • Lip-service to inclusion
        • Reluctant practice (time and energy concerns)
      • Lack of teacher efficacy
        • Failed differentiation (one-size fits all)
        • Botched co-teaching
      • Lack of student awareness
        • Social contact does not automatically improve social consciousness
        • Anxiety of students with disabilities over mainstreaming
      Kavale et al., 2000, 285-289
      • OSSE
        • Issued a statewide inclusion policy
          • Particularly affects two parts of Section 612 (a)
            • Unless services cannot be achieved satisfactorily, students with disabilities and students without disabilities should be educated together.
            • OSSE is responsible for ensuring that the mandate is met
          • Non-compliance with SPED indicators ensuring:
            • FAPE
            • LRE
      • OSSE, 2008
      Inclusion in DC (Cont)
    • Inclusion in DC
          • Blackman-Jones
          • Two lawsuits filed in 1997 vs. DC Gov’t and DCPS
            • Blackman vs District of Columbia
              • Challenged school system’s failure to hold special education due process hearings
            • Jones vs. District of Columbia
              • Charged system with delayed implementation of SPED plans ordered by hearing officers or negotiations made with parents or advocates.
            • Includes thousands of plaintiffs
              • Make up a class and are called class members
      • OSSE, 2008
    • Inclusion in DC (Cont)
      • Blackman-Jones (Cont)
      • Class Members
        • Over 6500 members
        • Requested or received SPED services at a DC public school (DCPS or Charter) or attended private school funded by DC between Jan 1, 1995-March 1, 2008.
        • Experienced delays receiving services because of an untimely due process hearing or decision or school did not implement due process hearing decision or settlement agreement.
        • DC agreed to provide all members with an award
            • Blackman/Jones Compensatory Education
        • Does not include all DC students identified with special needs
    • Inclusion in DC (Cont)
      • Full Service Schools (FSS)
        • Model
        • In-school services not offered regularly in DC schools
        • Academic coaches
        • Behavioral and mental health professionals
          • Support for teachers in students to increase academic achivement and social wellbeing
        • Best practices, differentiated instruction, behavior management
        • Strong partnerships between families and schools
        • Currently only on a middle school level- looking to expand
          • 11 schools
      • DC Public Schools, 2009
    • Inclusion in DC (Cont)
      • Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM)
      • Increases supports, services, and resources in Gen. Ed settings
        • Enhanced staffing
        • Intensive professional development
        • Technical assistance on integrated services
      • From isolated/separated support services to full integration of services
      • Response to an intervention model
        • Using indiv. Student achievement and behavior data to identify needs
      • Ongoing prof. development and technical assistance
        • Coaches assigned to every school
      • Currently in 15 Elementary schools- looking to expand
      • DC Public Schools, 2009
    • Least Restrictive Environment?
      • Most students with special needs attend
      • the majority of the classes with Gen Ed.
      • students
      • Some classrooms use a co-teaching model
        • One Gen Ed./ One SPED
      • SPED teachers work with both Gen Ed. And SPED students in adhering to inclusive model
      • Students who cannot be accommodated have the option to petition for placement
    • Least Restrictive Environment?
      • Kingsbury Day School
        • Private School
        • 90% of students come from DCPS
        • School for students with special needs
          • Still accomodations that DCPS cannot meet
        • Puts LRE vs. Inclusion
    • $$$$ RESOURCES! How Many of Us Have Them? $$$$
      • Teacher Lay-offs
        • Approx. 229 teachers
      • Budget Deficit
      • Many Schools still not in compliance re: SPED staffing
      • Not enough teachers with adequate SPED training to promote inclusive model
        • Cannot afford co-teachers
    • $$$$ RESOURCES! How Many of Us Have Them? $$$$ (cont)
      • Do not have the resources we need to promote the inclusive model we advertise.
        • In promoting a model we do not have the resources to support or implement, it compromises the LRE of all students
          • Students with disabilities are not getting the differentiated instruction they are entitled to
          • Gen Ed. Teachers= generally not equipped to work with IEPs
            • Little SPED training required to obtain Gen. Ed. licensing
    • Recommendations
      • Implement incentives for Gen. Ed. teachers to become SPED certified
        • Salary increases
          • Currently, teachers only receive $1500 a year extra for dual-certification
          • Make dual cert requirement for highly qualified status
            • Offer discounted/accelerated cert. programs
              • Through local partnerships/grants
              • Loan forgiveness
            • Over a third of DC’s residents are recognized as functionally illiterate- literacy training emphasis in several SPED programs in DC
            • More dual cert. teachers=less co-teachers= save $$$
            • Team of paraprofessionals for extra presence in classroom
    • Benefits
      • For Gen Ed. And SPED students
        • All students can benefit from teachers who have specialized training in working with/differentiating instruction for a variety of learners
        • Schools save money by eliminating co-teachers
          • Can work on increasing the pay of dual cert. teachers
        • More staff to manage case loads
          • More people qualified to lead IEP meetings and advocate for students with disabilities.
        • Single-certified SPED teachers can focus on students who need accommodations that extend past an inclusive classroom
    • References
      • Kavale, K. and Forness, S. (2000). History, Rhetoric, and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusive Debate. Remedial and Special Education . 22 (5), 279-296.
      • Hornby, G., Atkinson, M., and Howard, J. (1997). Controversial Issues in Special Education . London: David Fulton Publishers.
      • Alper, S., Schloss, P., Etscheidt, S. and Macfarlane C.A. (1995). Inclusion: Are We Abandoning or Helping Our Students? Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.
      • Yell, M. (2006). The Law and Special Education (2 nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson