CONTROVERSIAL THERAPIES FOR
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice
John W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, and James A. Mulick
CHAPTER 8
The Delusion of Full Inclusion
Devery R. Mock and James M. Kauffman
Chapter Presentation by
Leslie Mozulay
ABA 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
INCLUSION
• 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
o no time outside regular classrooms
o always learn in an environment not tailored
for the disabled
o expected to keep up with the pace of nondisabled students
Read 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
Teacher- General Education
Social Advocate
Teacher- Special Education
Legislator
Aide- Paraprofessional
School Board Member
Parent
School Administrator
Student
Behaviorist
Sibling
Other
INCLUSION IN ACTION
FOR AND AGAINST
http://www.google.com/search?q=inclusion+classroom&hl=
en&domains=seab.envmed.rochester.edu&prmd=imvns&tb
m=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2zjBT8KZA4i06gG4
wOC0Cg&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
VIDEO
Teachers 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 included
o all students are very much alike
o many 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 selfcontained programs is a disadvantage
(Monk and Kauffman, 2005)
Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS
MISIDENTIFICATION 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 defined
o instructional practices are fragmented
o teachers have low expectations and poor training
o 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 LEARNING
o 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)
CONCLUSION
regarding
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
MODIFICATION
Provides equal access to taking in
information for learning and allows
students to use different ways to
demonstrate knowledge
Curriculum and/or instruction is
changed to provide students with
meaningful & productive learning
experiences based on individual
needs and abilities.
DOES NOT alter or lower the
standards or expectations for a
subject area
DOES alter or lower the standards
or expectations for a subject area
Grading is the same
Grading is different
EXAMPLES
ACCOMMODATIONS
• seating in room
MODIFICATIONS
• alter goals or outcome
expectations
• extra time
• lower the criteria for grading
• level of support (peer, aide,
teacher)
• verbal rather than written
responses
• address learning styles by
altering assignments
• visual aides
• manipulatives
• 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 gradeappropriate texts (Adams, 1997)
ono sufficient evidence to warrant use
with students with or without
disabilities (Mock & Kauffman, 2005)
Delusion of Full Inclusion
A 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”
o better than what is or can be offered in a
separate, special setting
(e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).
The FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT fits
criteria for
fraud or quackery:
• contrary to common sense
• inconsistent with what we know about
disabilities
• lacking credible supporting evidence
Worrall (1990) ; (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 113)
WHAT ABOUT
RESEARCH
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 include
o interaction with peers
o unpredictable reinforcement schedules
o 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
used prior experiences to
understand
involved nonsequiturs
presented
oversimplifications
involved common
willful ignorance
FULL INCLUSION
MOVEMENT
rife with ignorance
dealing with irrelevant
claims of cause and
maltreatment
NONSEQUITURdoes 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)
OVERSIMPLIFICATION
with ADVOCATES for the
FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
seeing 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 schools
o Inclusion implementation is different at various levels
o Imbalance of research
• Resistance to change
o Teachers
o Students
o Instruction
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005)
WILLFUL IGNORANCE
with 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 outcomes
o 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 itselfnot the place in which it is
offeredthat 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=g9XX9227ek&feature=relmfu
QUESTIONS
or
COMMENTS
RESOURCES
Fardell, Sarah. (2012). eHow. Retrieved from
http:www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-fullinclusion-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