CONTROVERSIAL THERAPIES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional PracticeJohn W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, and James A. Mulick
CHAPTER 8
The Delusion of Full InclusionDevery R. Mock and James M. Kauffman
Chapter Presentation by
Leslie MozulayABA 553- Assessing Autism Interventions
Summer Session A 2012- Dr. Kenneth Reeve
BACKGROUND
• 1975 – U.S. Legislation
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
which gives all children regardless of disability the
right to a free public education.• later referred to as Public Law 94-142• 1990 version of this law, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), started an "inclusion movement" which recommends that no child be assigned to a special classroom or be segregated into another part of the school
I N C L U S I O N
• DOES IT WORK?
• IF SO, HOW?
• IF NOT, WHY NOT?
INCLUSION vs. FULL INCLUSION
• Inclusion: educating disabled children part time in regular classrooms
• Full inclusion: educating disabled children full time in regular classrooms ono time outside regular classroomsoalways learn in an environment not tailored for the
disabledoexpected to keep up with the pace of non-disabled
studentsRead more: Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD
Consideration of F U L L I N C L U S I O N from the viewpoint of . . .
Scientist
Social Advocate
Legislator
School Board Member
School Administrator
Behaviorist
Teacher- General Education
Teacher- Special Education
Aide- Paraprofessional
Parent
Student
Sibling
Other
INCLUSION IN ACTIONFOR AND AGAINST
http://www.google.com/search?q=inclusion+classroom&hl=en&domains=seab.envmed.rochester.edu&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2zjBT8KZA4i06gG4wOC0Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CGUQsAQ&biw=866&bih=573
Dr. Alan Harchik of the
May Institute for Children with Autism says,
"It is unrealistic to expect that regular education teachers will always have the specific training...be aware of the latest research, or be able to readily adapt the school's curriculum."
“Thus, children with disabilities need a supplementary class and teacher who can deal with these issues.” Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD
VIDEOTeachers Network
"INCLUSION:
Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)
in 3rd Grade.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLezaO949TE&feature=related
RECAP VIDEO
INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)
in 3rd Grade
RECAP OF VIDEO INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)
in 3rd Grade
• means special education as well general education are taught by two teachers all day long
• collaborative team teaching• small and large groups for smaller teacher to student ratio• differentiated instruction• modified and enriched curriculum• sense of community allows all children to learn and grow together• philosophy--- all deserve to learn in LRE• honors all learning styles• opportunity to learn all people are different • all have different strengths• all need different things to do our best• fair is not always equal• and anyone can learn from anyone else
REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE
of the 1980s
• forerunner of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
• elimination of the necessity of special education for at least many, if not most (Dunn,1968;Deno,1970)
• assumptions includedo all students are very much alikeomany or most students with disabilities can
be taught by regular classroom teachers (Kavale & Forness, 2000)
FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT of the 1990s
• complete elimination of special education as a separate entity (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994)
• assumption that normalizing influence of the general education classroom is more important and powerful than specialized, therapeutic interventions, even in the face of evidence that separate, special environments produce better outcomes for some students
(e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).
Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS
• Cost factors• Separation from mainstream
and Self Esteem• Misidentification of students• Quality of services• Continuum of alternative placements• Policy making
COSTS of Special Education
As more students with disabilities can be served in general education classes by regular teachers, FIM saves on cost for ospace (separate classes)ostaff (special teachers)ointensified instruction
(lower pupil-teacher ratios) (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)
Full Inclusion Movement’s concern with SELF ESTEEM
• self-esteem of students is damaged with separation
• “segregating” special education students in homogenous groupings in self-contained programs is a disadvantage
(Monk and Kauffman, 2005)
Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKSMISIDENTIFICATION and QUALITY OF SERVICES
of special education students
Concerns with students not being able to reach their true potential because
o disabilities are not properly definedo instructional practices are fragmentedo teachers have low expectations and poor
trainingo students are separated from the mainstream
(Alexander, Gray, & Lyon, 1993; Lyon & Fletcher, 2001; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996, 1997, 1998; McGill-Franzen, 1994; Slavin, 2001; Slavin & Madden, 2001a, 2001b)
Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS
CONTINUUM OF ALTERNATIVE
PLACEMENTS (CAP)
• CAP focuses on “free appropriate public education” • CAP includes instruction in general education, special
education, special schools, home instruction, hospital, institutions
• CAP stresses Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)• CAP requires provision for supplementary services• CAP promotes opportunities for student to interact with
peers who are nondisabled, to the extent appropriate
To accomplish
FULL INCLUSION • Lipsky and Gartner (1997) suggested, “ use
of instructional strategies that experienced and qualified teachers use for all children.”
o COOPERATIVE LEARNINGo CURRICULAR ADAPTATIONS
• MODIFICATIONS• ACCOMMODATIONS
o WHOLE LANGUAGE
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
• 12 studies were reviewed by Tateyama-Sniezek (1990)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE= cooperative learning
DEPENDENT VARIABLE= academic achievement
• OVER 10 YEARS LATER completion of another literature review by McMaster and Fuchs (2002)
CONCLUSIONregarding
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
NO GUARANTEE of academic gains . . .
“the use of empirically supported cooperative elements may be an important, but NOT A SUFFICIENT, determinant of cooperative learning’s effectiveness, specifically for student with LD.”
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p. 118)
The authors state . . .
“Why would we expect classmates to be better at helping LD students learn than professional teachers using an empirically validated curriculum?”
(Mock & Kauffman, p. 118)
CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS
NINE TYPES
QUANTITY TIME LEVEL OF SUPPORT
INPUT DIFFICULTY OUTPUT
PARTICIPATION ALTERNATE GOALS
SUBSTITUTE CURRICULUM
Diana Browning Wright with permission from Jeff Sprague, Ph.D. from an original by DeSchenes, C., Ebeling, D., & Sprague, J. (1994). Adapting Curriculum & Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms: A Teachers Desk Reference. ISDDCSCI Publication.NOTE: Diana Browning Wright, Teaching & Learning 2003- Positive Environments-Network of Trainers (PENT) Director/School Psychologist/Behavior Analyst
CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS
o Accommodations
o Modifications
ADAPTATIONS ACCOMMODATION
Provides equal access to taking in information for learning and allows students to use different ways to demonstrate knowledge
DOES NOT alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject area
Grading is the same
MODIFICATIONCurriculum and/or instruction is changed to provide students with meaningful & productive learning experiences based on individual needs and abilities.
DOES alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject area
Grading is different
EXAMPLES ACCOMMODATIONS MODIFICATIONS
• seating in room
• extra time
• level of support (peer, aide, teacher)
• verbal rather than written responses
• address learning styles by altering assignments
• visual aides
• manipulatives
• alter goals or outcome expectations
• lower the criteria for grading
• student works on different skill area (addition instead of multiplication)
• reduce amount of work expected (10 spelling words instead of 20)
• allow use of calculator
CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS used in response to problems for students with mild to severe disabilities can be seen as
Quack remedies
Not cure-alls
Weak, stress reducing treatments (Worrall, 1990)
What Full Inclusion Movement advocates fail to see . . .
• how EFFECTIVE, IF AT ALL, an adaptation may be
• that perhaps “separate or different objectives for one
or a few students can lead to their ISOLATION OR SEGREGATION” (Stainbeck et. al., 1996).
• that adaptations can be made in an INDISCRIMINATE MANNER
(questioning validity of adaptation and instruction)
• that a student may NOT be ENGAGED in the learning process with an adaptation aimed at a large group and being inappropriate for an individual
1980s WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH
in FULL INCLUSION CLASSROOMS• abandons specific skill instruction - decoding written
language
• focuses on reading process as a whole- reading as using language
• rejects value of quantitative evidence of effectiveness
• adopted in absence of any credible evidence of its efficacy (Adams, 1995; Slaving, 2001)
After implementation of
WHOLE LANGUAGE• RESULTS of 1992 and 1994 National
Assessment of Education Progress
omore than 40% of fourth graders were unable to read grade-appropriate texts (Adams, 1997)
ono sufficient evidence to warrant use with students with or without disabilities (Mock & Kauffman, 2005)
Delusion of Full InclusionA mainstream FULL INCLUSION setting • downplays need for specific instruction• holds out the false hope that the Full
Inclusion Movement will result in better instruction for students with disabilities while undercutting fiscal support for special education.
(Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)
Monk and Kauffman (2005) indicate
the “delusion of full inclusion” includes at least one of the following assumptions, if not all of them:
• If all students receive instruction in the same setting, they will receive the same opportunities to learn.
• Fair treatment of students with disabilities can be achieved only when the students are in the same place as student without disabilities.
• Students with disabilities should be treated like all other students.
(see Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000, p. 67, for the last statement of the last assumption)
THOSE FOR
FULL INCLUSION
ignore
and
misinterpret research findings
(Kauffman, 1989; Monk & Kauffman, 2005)
“pseudoscience”
• Does Full Inclusion claim itself as a scientific revolution?
• Does Full Inclusion withstand careful scrutiny?
(Sherman, 2001)
“noxious delusion”• changing the place in which teaching
is preferred• use of a “mainstream” setting
o considered by proponents of Full Inclusion Movement as “the place to be”
obetter than what is or can be offered in a separate, special setting
(e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).
• contrary to common sense • inconsistent with what we know about
disabilities• lacking credible supporting evidence
Worrall (1990) ; (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 113)
The FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT fits
criteria for
fraud or quackery:
WHAT ABOUTR E S E A R C H
supporting
OPPOSITION
to the
FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT ?
OPPOSITION to the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
• “delivery of specialized intervention services within
regular classrooms highly problematic” (Walker & Bullis 1991,p.
84).
• effective teaching of a child is delayed or denied by
the placement (Crockett
& Kauffman, 1999; Palmer, Fuller, Arora, & Nelson, 2001).
• problematic behavior triggers includeo interaction with peerso unpredictable reinforcement scheduleso environments filled with desks, chairs, books, and
many other objects (Jacobson, Foxx, Mulick, 2005, p. 115)
OPPOSITION to
FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
• educational practice changes in the absence of empirical support have proven harmful to student progress
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p 119).
• the Full Inclusion Movement is seen as harmful when there are no special education programs for students with severe disabilities
(Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995)
PARENTAL VIEWPOINTS
Parents of children with severe disabilities found general education to be unhelpful for their children. (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998, 1999).
Mother of a child with autism . . .
in a G.E. classroom “so much is counterintuitive in the treatment of autism that her son Daniel’s general education teachers often hinder rather than help him learn to cope with his classroom environment.” Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p 180).
Parent of two children with disabilities . . .
considered “mainstreaming as something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Like any other fad, it is being evangelized as a cure-all. It isn’t. It is terrific in some cases. In others, it is child abuse.” (Palmer, et. al. 2001, p. 482)
STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION
The Delusion of Full Inclusion authors make reference to Seymour Sarason’s (2001) parallel comparison between society’s initial responses to the virus that causes AIDS with the ignorance and irrelevant claims made in relationship to the Full Inclusion Movement.
Seymour Sarason’s Comparison
INITIAL RESPONSES to VIRUS that CAUSES AIDS
FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
used prior experiences to understand
rife with ignorance dealing with irrelevant claims of cause and maltreatment
involved nonsequiturs
presented oversimplifications
involved common willful ignorance
NONSEQUITUR-
does not follow logically from anything previously said . . .
Advocates of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT argue for policies unchecked by empirical science. . . “Without a properly rendered research base, policy analysis becomes policy advocacy because reason alone and the influence of values goes unchecked” (Kavale, Fuchs, and Sruggs, 1994)
“Argument unaccompanied by reliable scientific evidence is simply propaganda.” (Sasso, 2001)
OVERSIMPLIFICATIONwith ADVOCATES for the
FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENTseeing it as a moral matter of civil rights and likening current special education placement options to racial
segregation, apartheid and slavery.
OPPONENTS of
the Full Inclusion Movement
state Special Education and matters such as these “are built on entirely different legal, moral, and educational
premises.” (see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Kauffman, 2002; Kauffman & Lloyd, 1995).
OVERSIMPLIFICATION Schools-Students-Research
• Difference of FULL INCLUSION in elementary, middle and high schoolso Inclusion implementation is different at various levelso Imbalance of research
• Resistance to change o Teacherso Studentso Instruction
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005)
WILLFUL IGNORANCEwith research reviewed
so far,
the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
is based
on false premises. (Mock and Kauffman, 2005)
WILLFUL IGNORANCE
FALSE PREMISES
• Inclusion in general education classes achieve better outcomes than pullout class
• Separation of special education students causes them to fall further behind general education peers
(Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, et al., 2001)
WILLFUL IGNORANCE
Efficacy studies used to discredit special education practices
compromised by methodological shortcomings
• consistency within group membership (Ysseldyke and Bielinski, 2002)
as well as, • control for teacher effects• established criterion level of instructional performance• use of standardized measures• use of same measures between pretest and posttest• control for sample heterogeneity• use of the correct unit of analysis
o reported inflated treatment outcomeso reported unreliable treatment outcomes
(Simmerman and Swanson, 2001)
CRITICAL CHALLENGE for students with disabilities, is how we
view and treat difference . . .
• The challenge is to not ONLY have the individual feel included and accepted BUT ALSO
have the individual learn to read or learn to feed oneself.
• SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE of a disability does not cause the disability to disappear.
• TREATMENTS used for one do not necessarily work for another.
• PLACEMENT for one does not necessarily work for another.
The FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT may be popular because of the appearance of being “a road to quick and easy success” which ends the “separation from the mainstream” and as a result is “the dissolution of special education as a separate, identifiable entity.”
(Monk & Kauffman, 2005; Kauffman, 1999a, 2002; Zigmond, 1997)
But to really meet the needs of students with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, then
the task requires . . .
• Great effort to meet needs• Funding• Trained and effective teachers• Individualized programs• Appropriate placements• Use of systematic, empirical methods that
draw on observation or experiment
Special education is by nature
paradoxical, in that it is a way of
achieving equal opportunities
through treatment that is different
(and therefore unequal). (Monk and Kauffman, 2005)
Without different treatment,
unfairness is assured . . .
(Monk & Kauffman, 2005).
. . . to maximize equity, we offer
special education to students with
disabilities.
(see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Hockenbury, Kauffman, & Hallahan, 1999-2000).
“Although special education surely needs significant improvement,
it is the improvement
of instruction itself-
not the place in which it is offered-
that is critical.”
(Kauffman, 1999a, 2002; Zigmond, 1997)
INCLUSION IS BELONGING
It is not a program . . .
It is not just a place . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9-XX9227ek&feature=relmfu
QUESTIONSor
COMMENTS
RESOURCESFardell, Sarah. (2012). eHow. Retrieved from http:www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html (5/30/12).
Mock, Devery R. and James M. Kauffman. (2005). The Delusion of Full Inclusion. Jacobson, Foxx, & Mulick (Ed.), Controversial Therapies for Developmental Disabilities – Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice (pp. 113-128). NYC: Routledge, reprint 2010.
Wright, Diana Browning. (2003). Teaching and Learning Trainings Positive Environments-Network of Trainers. Retrieved from http://acts.lausd.net/BTSA/Documents/Ed%20Spec/Grid. of.Nine.pdf