Search results

Successful implementation of Response to Intervention frameworks in schools requires general and special education teachers to have well-integrated knowledge bases for providing instruction and intervention in reading and behavior. Implementation-focused approaches to changing teacher behavior, favored traditionally in special education, however, are unlikely to help teachers acquire such knowledge. In this chapter, we discuss the knowledge and practice that defines expert teachers in reading and behavior and how such expertise might be achieved through practice-focused approaches to initial teacher education and professional development.

Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, federal law has prioritized the education of students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers in the context of the general education classroom. This chapter examines the progress, and often lack thereof, with regard to educating students with extensive and pervasive support needs in inclusive settings. We examine current trends in placement, factors that contribute to those placement practices, and what IDEA says about the education of students with extensive and pervasive support needs. We examine what the research suggests happens in substantially segregated settings and then, in contrast, examine impacts and outcomes for students with extensive and pervasive support needs who are educated in inclusive settings. We also examine trends resulting from changing paradigms of disability that provide new opportunities for re-invigorating efforts to educate students with extensive and pervasive support needs in inclusive classrooms.

Most definitions of learning disabilities (LD) include a qualification that adequate general education instruction was received and the child with LD did not benefit. Rarely is this tenet assessed in either practice or research before a diagnosis is made. In this chapter we review three studies that investigated children’s responsiveness to general education reading instruction as an indicator of the need for more intensive interventions. Adequacy of instruction was quantified by children’s level and rate of progress as measured by curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency. This model of identification was based on Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) treatment-validity model wherein children who do not respond to interventions provided in the general education classroom are potential candidates for special education services. The results of the studies reviewed indicate that the model is valid in that: (a) children who differ from their peers on level and slope of performance have more severe academic and behavioral problems than children who have IQ-achievement discrepancies or low achievement; (b) children who demonstrate persistent non-responsiveness over three years differ from other at-risk children on reading, reading-related, and behavioral measures; and (c) at-risk children who participated in specially-designed general education interventions had better outcomes than at-risk children who did not participate.

This chapter provides “viewpoints” on the education of learners with extensive and pervasive support needs. That is, students who require the most support to learn, often categorized as having intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, or related disabilities. The lenses through which we provide these viewpoints are historical and future-oriented; we begin with historic perspectives on the education of students with extensive and pervasive support needs, and then provide 21st century viewpoints for these learners. We interpret the notion of viewpoints in two ways: first, consistent with a viewpoint as indicating an examination of objects (in this case, practices and interventions) from a distance so as to be able to compare and judge; and, second, viewpoint as indicating our perspective on said interventions and practice.

During the last decade, school districts throughout the United States have implemented inclusion programs utilizing a variety of models. A growing number of school districts are including all students with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities, into general education classrooms (Thousand & Villa, 1990). Although the term inclusion has no legal definition, and has been interpreted by educational professionals in a variety of ways, the concept has been in existence under the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of PL 94-142, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 101-476, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and most recently within PL 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997. According to IDEA (1997), public education agencies are required to ensure that: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [Authority 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)].The concept of inclusion has been defined in various ways within the literature. Catlett and Osher (1994) reviewed policy statements of professional organizations and found at least seven different definitions for inclusion. Currently, in education, inclusion is the term used when students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms for a portion of the school day (Falvey et al., 1995b). The term inclusion is differentiated from mainstreaming. Mainstreaming refers to the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate instructional support (Meyen, 1990). When students are mainstreamed, they are usually prepared prior to placement into general education and are expected to “keep up” with the general classroom expectations (Rogers, 1993). Students with disabilities who are mainstreamed receive the same or nearly the same curriculum as general education students and are expected to “fit” into the general curriculum and classroom. On the other hand, within inclusive programs, the general education teacher is expected to make adaptations to provide a suitable environment for students with disabilities. Within the literature on inclusion, there are a variety of interpretations of the definition of inclusion (e.g. Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Rogers, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1984). For the purposes of this chapter, inclusion is defined as programs in which students with disabilities (with the exception of gifted) are eligible for special education, have an individualized education program (IEP), and receive their education in general education classrooms using different, modified, and/or additional curricula from students without disabilities. This definition of inclusion is similar to “selective inclusion” as described by Zionts (1997). Selective inclusion refers to partial general education class placement of students with disabilities (Zionts). The assumption that this definition is based on is that general education is not always appropriate for every student; some students may benefit by receiving individualized services in addition to general education.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine what it means for students with extensive support needs (ESN) to have opportunities to learn (OTL), why OTL is inexplicably tied to inclusive practices, and the in-school and post-school outcomes when students have OTL. Research will be provided that supports positive in-school and post-school outcomes, when students are provided equitable learning opportunities in inclusive contexts. Given the difference in possible outcomes for students with ESN when they do and do not have OTL, excluding them from general education contexts, where they have the best access to the intended and enacted curricula, is both unethical and limiting to society as a whole.

The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act address factors to consider in educating students with and without disabilities together to the maximum extent appropriate. This chapter is designed to examine the origins and evolving interpretations of the LRE concept in special education policy and practice. Discussion traces the evolution of the concept as a legal principle, and reviews its application to educational strategies for students with learning and behavioral disabilities in contemporary schools. In conclusion, the future of the LRE concept is addressed in light of competing policies promoting presumptive inclusive education, and publicly funded school choice programs promoting greater involvement of parents in choosing where their children with and without disabilities should be educated.

In the United States, students with disabilities have moved from learning in a segregated environment to being included in the general education classroom. Legislative mandates have encouraged this shift to occur in public schools in order to equal the playing field for students with disabilities. Both general and special education students with learning disabilities (LD) have been affected from inclusion. This chapter describes the legal, historical, psychological, and instructional concepts shaping the way students with LD are educated today.

This chapter reviews the intervention research literature – particularly interventions deemed evidence-based – for students with intellectual disability across academic and life-skills instruction. Although the focus of this chapter is the spectrum of students covered under the term “intellectual disability,” the majority of research on evidence-based interventions for students with intellectual disability focus on students with more moderate and severe intellectual disability, rather than students with mild intellectual disability. The majority of the interventions determined to be evidence-based within the literature for students with intellectual disability – across both academic and life skills – tend to be those that fall within the purview of systematic instruction.

This chapter explores a US state-endorsed tool for reviewing district, school, and classroom inclusive practices. The Best Practices for Inclusive Education (BPIE) assessment tool was developed through a collaborative initiative between state personnel, University faculty, and representatives from a federally funded technical assistance project, Florida Inclusion Network. The tool supports a facilitated review and subsequent action planning for greater inclusive practices that includes learners with severe intellectual disabilities. This chapter describes the BPIE process and offers examples of its application in districts across Florida with particular reference to practices that support learners with severe intellectual disabilities.