Inclusion Evolution

Empowering Individuals with Down Syndrome at School and Work

7 Research Studies You Can Use At Your Child’s Next IEP Meeting to Win the Fight for Inclusion

by

“Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible.”

Most parents of students with Down syndrome have heard a variation of the quote above, especially if you’ve tried fighting for inclusion. I assumed this statement was just hyperbole. I figured there was some truth in it, but that there was probably just as much research showing self-contained classes were more beneficial than inclusion. At least that’s what most school districts and even many parents would have you believe.

Imagine my surprise then, when I read the EXACT quote above in the introduction to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (read it for yourself right here). The actual law, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, states that a regular classroom with proper supports is best for ALL students with disabilities. I was a bit taken back, and wanted to know more about this research the law touted.

Read Related Post Here: 5 Tips for Including Students with Down Syndrome in a General Education Classroom

What I found was even more surprising. Did you know there’s not one quantitative research study, since research began on the topic, that shows an academic advantage for students with intellectual disabilities in separate settings? None! Zip! Nada! Here’s the research study citation to prove it: Falvey, Mary A. (Spring 2004) Toward realization of the least restrictive educational environments for severely handicapped students. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 29 (1), 9-10. 

Luckily, I’ve learned a lot more about the research that supports proper inclusion for students with even the most severe disabilities as part of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Special Education Training. It’s a year-long course I’m taking to prepare for my own son’s entry into public education, as well as to fulfill my goal to help other families advocate for inclusion for their child. The information below is credited to the amazing Selene Almazan, special education lawyer who specializes in the least restrictive environment.

So, without further ado, below are 7 quantitative research studies that show the benefits of including students with even the most severe disabilities in a general education classroom:

In the area of IEP quality, time of engagement, and individual supports:

    1. In a 1992 quantitative study, Hunt and Farron-Davis found a significant increase in Individualized Education Plan (IEP) quality in measures of age appropriateness, functionality, and generalizations when students were moved from a self-contained classroom to a general education classroom. This was true even when the special educator stayed the same and moved with the child into the least restrictive environment. Experts interpret this to mean that there’s nothing going on within the four walls of a self-contained classroom that provides value and quality when stacked up against general education classroom settings.
      • Citation: Hunt, P., & Farron-Davis, F. (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with placement in general education versus special education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicapps, 17 (4), 247-253.
    2. Two years later, the same researchers looked at engagement of students with severe disabilities within general education. They found that there was an increase in the amount of instruction for functional activities for students with severe disabilities within general education compared to self-contained classrooms. Students in self-contained classrooms were less engaged and more isolated.
      • Citation: Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19 (3), 200-214.

3. Similar results were found in a study of a small group of students with severe disabilities. Some of the students were placed in general education and some were in a self-contained classroom. The study found the general education setting provided more instruction time, a comparable about of one-on-one time, addressed content curriculum more, and engaged in peer-modeling more.

  • Citation: Helmstetter, Curry, Brennan, & Sampson-Saul, (1998). Comparison of general and special education classrooms of students with severe disaitatebilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 216-227.

Read Related Post Here: So you survived IEP season? 3 steps to get organized NOW for the next one

In the area of non-academic time and individualizing supports:

4. A 2000 quantitative study found 58% of time spent in a self-contained classroom was classified as “non-instructional,” compared to 35% of the time in a general education classroom. The students with severe disabilities in general education classroom were also 13 times more likely than their typical peers to receive direct instruction during whole-class time, and 23 times more likely to receive one-on-one support. This challenges the common argument that students with disabilities cannot receive individualized instruction in a general education setting.

  • Citation: McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., & McQuivey, C. (2000). Comparison of teh instructional contexts of students with severe disabilities and their peers in general education classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 54-58.

In the area of student outcomes and impact on typical peers: 

5. A 2001 study out of Indiana looked at academic progress for students with disabilities in general education and self-contained classrooms over two years. 47.1% of students with disabilities in general education made progress in math, compared to 34% in self-contained classes. Reading progress was comparable in both settings. Interestingly, the study found typical peers made higher gains in math when students with disability were present. Researchers hypothesized that extra help and supports in these classes created gains for all students.

  • Citation: Waldron, N., Cole, C., & Majd, M. (2001). The academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings: a two year study Indiana inclusion study. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Institute on Disability & Community

6. A study looking at the outcome of 11,000 students with all types of disabilities found that more time in a general education classroom correlated to less absences from school, fewer referrals for misbehavior, and more post-secondary education and employment options.

  • Citation: Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., and Levine, P. (2006). The Academic Achievement and Functional Performance of Youth with Disabilities: A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (NCSER 2006-3000). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International

7. Many schools and parents make the argument that typical peers may be negatively impacted by the presence of students with disabilities. Especially those students with behavior problems. But a 1998 study out of Montana found that inclusion does NOT compromise a typical students academic or social outcome. The Indiana study above shows they actually make more progress because of inclusionary practices.

  • Citation: McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R.T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical and Research Foundations. A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive schooling. University of Montana, Rural Institute on Disabilities.

So with all this proof, why are students with intellectual disabilities still only being included in general education 17% of their day on average? Tell me below why you think this is the reality for our loved ones. I’ll do a blog post giving my answer as well.

 

 

Courtney - Post Signature

Comments

  1. maria fitzpatrick says

    Because the contained room are still the dumping grounds were behavior or special need kids go. Accademics are not the primary goal it’s behavior.

    • Courtney says

      True in many cases. The law states that students shouldn’t be segregated based on behavior. Behavior supports need to be given in a regular setting first. We know many school districts don’t do this though, and parents don’t fight it.

      • Robin C says

        I think schools need to provide the teachers with the proper inclusion model education and resources so that they are able to include all students. If the teachers have the support then hopefully they will be less resistent to the change. In my district we have very limited inclusion options, often sending your child to a different school then their siblings. Inclusion to them is for kids with trouble reading or receiving a related service. All other kids are immediately put in self contained. It’s truly sad. They justify it by having the self contained students included in gym and art. SMH.All students should have the opportunity to be included IF that is where the parents choose them to be. It’s not right for evreyone but those of us that want it shouldn’t have to fight so hard for it.

        • Angela M. Topp says

          Yes, teachers need to be provided with modified curriculum.

          Publishers need to be held accountable. Publishers provide the general curriculum along with supplements for gift and English language learners…where are the supplements for students with cognitive disabilities!? It is discriminatory. I would think publishers who would provide modified materials would have a real upper hand in selling their curriculum to school districts. Do they not know the need?

          So ridiculous that teachers all across the country are making their own modifications for common core curriculum…from scratch. At least, give them some materials that they can then modify to meet the individual needs of their students…somewhere to start.

          Could we have websites for each State where teachers could share? Not teachers selling their stuff, but sharing for the common good of students with disabilities. Often, modifications made for one student with disabilities is found to be helpful for other students and entire classes.

          It is really a social justice issue or civil rights issue…whatever you want to call it. How about a class action lawsuit against publishers? That might get their attention.

    • Anna says

      Ok so to dissect each number with the knowledge that I have having had experience working with severely autistic children only as a para for many years, violent challenging children, adults with disabilities in their own homes as a therapist and dealing with my own son and the entire school district I come to you to say this. Number one mentions there is nothing going on within the four walls, this is true. When in gen ed classes the child has many role models, in spec ed all the children are many varying behaviors. There is also only one or two IEPS to be written by one teacher and if a separate period such as history or English as in Junior High then it’s even less. One page, one baseline, one goal. Now on to number two the same as with number one. More engagement and the child is validated and socially effective. More collaboration to find a solution to a child being included. The class sees the child as needing so many children support this. Bullies are not allowed or minimal when the group mentality sets in and is inclusive. Now number three states more instruction time.. duh! A gen ed history teacher has one child with a disability a spec ed contained class has how many students? He can handle one or two kiddos with disabilities with a para. And give the child one page of history (modified) voila! Teach him ambitious work about Roman history and he’s captivated! Look I could explain the rest but we get it here. Children when spread out over the campus and when the proper PBIP is written succeed. The PBIP must also be a collaborative method using skinner practices and mirroring. Easy! The aid or para must be consistent as well as all teachers. The teachers must have passion to do this and not a blasé attitude. As a parent of a child with this life (not special) I force my son and his school to behave as such. There is no choice. If you make sacrifices for your child your child won’t be the sacrifice. I play an active part in all my sons periods and the school didn’t like it at first but I don’t care. I have more energy and work harder than most of the teachers. If I don’t get a day off, neither do they. Work hard and life will reward you! I’m a single mom, own my massage therapy business, and bought my parents home. I also caregive for them.. Don’t give up.

  2. Jennifer says

    I think it’s many things – fear of something unknown, the belief that gen ed is a more expensive way to educate our kids, eg resource strain. We negotiated hard for our kinder daughter with Down syndrome to be in a gen ed classroom at her home school. We got what we wanted and today it’s just amazing. However, without the proper supports for our teachers and aides, I do not believe we would experience the same success. As parents we also work each day in our community to change the message and share that our daughter has a right to be in that classroom. That our daughter makes thatbclassroom even better because she’s there.

    • Courtney says

      Agreed. So glad we have parents like you who fight for inclusion. It’s a constant battle, but worth the fight if done correctly.

  3. Angela M. Topp says

    It’s easier and less time-consuming to place students in self-contained classrooms because curriculum must be modified and more planning is necessary for general ed placement. And teachers/administrators are afraid of the unknown. I also think administrators feel it is safer for the students to isolate them.

    In my opinion, textbook publishers need to have their feet held to the fire for not providing modified materials. Textbooks seem to have additional materials for the gifted students, but do not have materials for the intellectually-challenged students….discrimination in my book.

    Teachers have to modify on their own. Why? Most schools in the U.S. use common core standards or something similar. Why are teachers having to reinvent the wheel every time a student with intellectual disabilities is included in their classroom? Obviously, students need different modifications, but teacher should have access to modified materials from which they may choose and they can then further modify to meet student needs.

      • Virginia Piper says

        In reference to the mention of modifications to curriculum—if schools would all use UDL there would essentially be no reason to modify. The strategies used in UDL reach the lowest performing student to the highest. School systems notoriously “teach to the average student”—there really isn’t any such thing even among those without ID. The IDEA refers to the use of UDL practices but very few schools use it. It is not designed for special education. It is designed for all students.

        • Courtney says

          This is a great point! I did a post on UDL, and would love to do another one. Do you have any resources you could share on how to teach ANY curriculum to all students? Thanks Virginia!

    • Courtney says

      Of course! I wrote it to reference back for my own son, but I knew others would want to use the info as well. Glad you found it helpful!

  5. Derrie Hodge says

    How is the ratio of teachers to cover classes determined? My sixth graders were in one homeroom and I traveled with them. That worked great. How do others work it so teachers are able to do a good job?

    • Courtney says

      Co-teaching or paraprofessionals can help any classroom run more effectively. No doubt about it: teachers need support. Inclusion is not throwing a kid with significant needs into a classroom of 29 kids and hoping for the best. That’s not what the law intended or what inclusion espouses.

  6. LA says

    I believe it is because it is more difficult to have them in the classroom. In our district they say it’s because my child is behind they should be in self contained. I argued that the law says my child still needs to be included. They try to make evey excuse — self contained has kids at their level so they can work with other kids, they will learn more in smaller group…. went I to self contained room and the majority of the time kids in the room was doing nothing. Complained and they said that I cannot talk about anyone else’s experiences besides my child- then my child started being marked down more often in school during the gen ed time. I think if the school worked half as hard at including kids as they do for excluding them, all kids will be better off.

  7. Elizabeth Hileman says

    I am concerned about the age of most of the articles used. The most recent article was 12 years old. Is there any new research that would show how self contained classrooms have incorporated Common Core State Standards? I can’t help but question if the data is outdated and no longer applicable.

Trackbacks