Full Inclusion of 1
Running Head: RESEARCH PROPOSAL REGARDING ANALYSIS OF DISABLED
Full Inclusion of the Severely Handicapped in the Regular Education Classroom
Full Inclusion of 2
Abstract
Full inclusion of the severely handicapped in the regular classroom setting will be
addressed in this local (El Paso) study. 50 regular education teachers at the high school
level will be given a questionnaire based upon the effects of inclusion of severely
handicapped students in regular education classrooms. The survey will be designed in
order to address the rewards and difficulties to full inclusion. "Age- and gradeappropriate placement is the most controversial component of inclusion because it is
based on ideals, values, and goals that are not congruent with the realities of today's
classrooms. Proponents of full inclusion assume that the regular education classrooms can
and will be able to accommodate all students with disabilities, even those with severe and
multiple disabilities. They assume that such students can obtain educational and social
benefits from that placement. Those who oppose full inclusion argue that, although
methods of collaborative learning and group instruction are the preferred methods, the
traditional classroom size and resources are often inadequate for the management and
accommodation of many students with disabilities without producing adverse effects on
the classroom as a whole
(http://www.teachervision.fen.com/page/2942.html?detoured=1).
Full Inclusion of 3
Introduction
Inclusion -- the idea that all children, including those with disabilities, should and
can learn in a regular classroom -- has taken firm root in many school systems, although
the law does not specifically require it (www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml).
To oppose inclusion would seem to advocate exclusion. Yet, some observers maintain
that full inclusion isn't always the best way to meet student needs. In this study, we will
examine the educator’s point of view. 50 teachers will be given a questionnaire based
upon the inclusion of severely handicapped students in regular education classrooms. The
questionnaire will be formulated in order to address the advantages and disadvantages to
full inclusion.
Statement of the Problem
The problem we addressed in this work was defined as a perceived lack of
information about the issues surrounding inclusion (inclusive education) high school
teachers. So we must ask ourselves if inclusion of all children with disabilities in regular
classrooms seems to be the law of the land, is it the right thing for all students? The most
important issue faced is how regular teachers handle the pressures or stresses of having to
deal with regular and disabled students. Therefore, when studying inclusion we must
carefully consider the effects that may be placed on students and teachers alike.
Review of Related Literature
Inclusion-- Inclusion is a term, which expresses commitment to educate each
child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would
otherwise attend. It involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than
moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being
Full Inclusion of 4
in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students). Proponents of
inclusion generally favor newer forms of education service delivery
(http://www.IDEAS.Wisconsin.edu/weac).
Full Inclusion-- Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping
condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom/program full time. All services must
be taken to the child in that setting. In addition to problems related to definition, there
should also be an understanding that there often is a philosophical or conceptual
distinction made between mainstreaming and inclusion. Those who support the idea of
mainstreaming believe that a child with disabilities first belongs in the special education
environment and that the child must earn his/her way into the regular education
environment. In contrast, those who support inclusion believe that the child always
should begin in the regular environment and be removed only when appropriate services
cannot be provided in the regular classroom (http://www.IDEAS.Wisconsin.edu/weac).
There are many different views regarding full inclusion. Critics of full inclusion ask
whether even students with the most severe disabilities benefit from placement in regular
classrooms (www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml). Is it possible to create a
mold or style of education that gives balance between both regular and disable students?
There are advocates on both sides of the issue. James Kauffman of the University of
Virginia views inclusion as a policy driven by an unrealistic expectation that money will
be saved. Furthermore, he argues that trying to force all students into the inclusion mold
is just as coercive and discriminatory as trying to force all students into the mold of a
special education class or residential institution
(http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm).
Full Inclusion of 5
At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that all students belong in the
regular education classroom, and that "good" teachers are those who can meet the needs
of all the students, regardless of what those needs may be. However, the question as to
how good a teacher is irrelevant to those who oppose full inclusion. In the case, Poolaw
vs. Parker Unified School District (Federal District Court, Arizona, 1994), the court rules
in favor of residential placement for a disabled student. The court found that the benefits
of regular education placement were minimal and that the child's educational needs could
be met appropriately only by the residential placement
(http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm).
While few educators oppose inclusion completely, some express reservations about
how full inclusion works in the classroom. Albert Shanker, writing for the American
Federation of Teachers in 1996 in "Where We Stand," asserted, "What full inclusionists
don't see is that children with disabilities are individuals with differing needs; some
benefit from inclusion and others do not. Full inclusionists fail to recognize that the
medically fragile and severe behavioral disorder children are more likely to be harmed
than helped when they are placed in regular classrooms where teachers do not have the
highly specialized training to deal with their needs”
(www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml).
According to Donald Crawford, full inclusion is a philosophical movement based
upon the notion that all students, regardless of the level or type of disability, should be
educated entirely in the same general education classrooms as their same-age peers.
Advocates of a policy of full inclusion feel that special education classrooms constitute a
form of segregation and that separate classrooms for special education students, like
Full Inclusion of 6
classrooms segregated by race, are inherently unequal. Crawford, in opposition, feels that
full inclusion will eventually force general education classes into loosely organized,
child-centered, discovery-oriented and ultimately ineffective practices of progressive
education (http://my.execpc.com/~presswis/inclus.html).
According to Ayres and Meyer (1992), teachers must be empowered and recognized
as knowing their students and circumstances better than anyone else. Teachers must have
ownership in any innovative programs or model implementation in order for change to
occur and be successful. They both feel that innovative and effective staff development
activities can be implemented to initiate successful school reform. These staff
development activities can target teacher attitudes, classroom practices, and child
outcomes (http://epaa.asu.edu/cgi-bin/htsearch).
Between the two extremes are large groups of educators and parents who are confused
by the concept itself. They wonder whether inclusion is legally required and wonder what
is best for children. They also question what it is that schools and school personnel must
do to meet the needs of children with disabilities
(www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml).
Statement of the Purpose
Presently, the issue of full inclusion continues to be a debate among many.
However, our group would like to approach and gain knowledge from the educator’s
perspective. Throughout this study, we hope to find out whether full inclusion is an aid or
hindrance for both regular and disabled students alike. In, general we want to examine if
the affects of full inclusion are a help or barrier for both student types.
Full Inclusion of 7
Statement of Research Questions
At the current, full inclusion has been and continues to be a controversial concept
in education because it relates to educational and social values, as well as to our sense of
individual worth. However, a small amount research has been done on the subject. Many
people give opinions based off experience but the amount of concrete evidence remains to
be limited.
We have proposed the following questions to teachers in hopes of learning more about
the affects on full inclusion in the regular classroom.

Do regular education teachers feel that inclusion is appropriate for all students?

Does full inclusion inhibit both regular and disabled student success in the regular
education classroom?

Do regular education teachers feel that full inclusion of severely handicapped
students will have an effect on time management within the regular education
classroom?
Statement of Hypothesis
Throughout this study we hope to find that full inclusion has a negative impact in
the regular classroom.
Significance of Study
Although support for inclusion of children with disabilities in regular education
gains momentum, research lags behind. John McDonnell stated “ Unfortunately we do
not have research that has directly addressed this issue”(http://ericec.org/faq/i-long.html).
The significance of this study would be to obtain the teacher’s point of view on the
subject of full inclusion. There have not been any scientific studies to this date that we
Full Inclusion of 8
could find on this particular subject. We feel that full inclusion is important and relevant
to the lives of educators therefore we would like their opinions and thoughts on the
subject.
Definition of Major Variables
In order to alleviate confusion on both sides of the spectrum (advocates and
opponents), we will examine inclusion education, the role of regular education teachers,
and characteristics of severely handicapped students. Through the examination of these
variables we hope to look at all the areas that are apart of the full inclusion process. We
also hope to shed light on each aspect.
Inclusive education means disabled and non-disabled children and young people
learning together in ordinary pre-school provision, schools, colleges and universities, with
appropriate networks of support. Inclusion means enabling pupils to participate in the life
and work of mainstream institutions to the best of their abilities, whatever their needs
http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/csiefaqs.htm. Generally, mainstreaming has been used to
refer to the selective placement of special education students in one or more "regular"
education classes. Proponents of mainstreaming generally assume that a student must
"earn" his or her opportunity to be placed in regular classes by demonstrating an ability to
"keep up" with the work assigned by the regular classroom teacher
(http://www.IDEAS.Wisconsin.edu/weac).
The term regular education teacher means a person who, under state standards, is
qualified to provide instruction to non-disabled children of the same age as the child with
a disability. The regular education teacher must also be knowledgeable about age-relevant
developmental activities or milestones. Regular education teacher of the child means a
Full Inclusion of 9
regular education teacher who is, or is anticipated to be, the child’s teacher and is
knowledgeable about appropriate activities of typically developing peers, so the teacher is
able to determine how the child’s disabilities affect the child’s participation (involvement
and progress) in those appropriate activities
http://www.kansped.org/ksde/cim/reptmtg.html. Typically, the primary responsibility of
general education teachers is to use their skills to instruct students in curricula dictated by
the school system. Typically, the primary responsibility of special education teachers is to
provide instruction by adapting and developing materials to match the learning styles,
strengths, and special needs of each of their students. In special education situations,
individual learners' needs often dictate the curricula
http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed409317.html.
According to the National Information Center for Children and Youth with
Disabilities, people with severe disabilities are those who traditionally have been labeled
as having severe or profound mental retardation. These people require ongoing extensive
support in more than one major life activity in order to participate in integrated
community settings and enjoy the quality of life available to people with fewer or no
disabilities; they frequently have additional disabilities, including movement difficulties,
sensory losses and behavior problems. The basis characteristics of a person who is
considered severely handicapped or having multiple disabilities include limited speech or
communication, difficulty in basic physical mobility, tendency to forget skills through
disuse, trouble generalizing skills from one situation to another, and a need for support in
major life activities such as domestic, leisure, community use, or vocational
(http:/www.kidsource.com/NICHCY/severe_disable.html).
Full Inclusion of 10
Clearly, the process of transition to full inclusion would be especially difficult for
teachers and regular education students because this is a huge gap in the way of teaching
as well to those that are being taught. Thus, causing a negative impact in the regular
education classroom as stated in our hypothesis. Obviously, barriers would exist during
the integration process. One major barrier to the practice of inclusion is the reactive
instead of proactive response of schools to students' special needs. Too often students are
simply excluded, instead of school personnel working to overcome challenging
behaviors. Another barrier hinges on the fact that some schools still do not make the
environmental modifications that would increase access. A third and attitudinal barrier
concerns general educators' lack of feeling responsible for educating students with
disabilities http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n19.html.
Method
In order to obtain regular education teacher’s perspective on the issue of
full inclusion we have developed a Liket scale survey. The scale will range from 1
“strongly agree” to 6 “strongly disagree” Through the responses on the survey, we hope to
determine perspectives as to whether or not inclusion is helping or hurting both regular
and disable students. SPSS software will be used to organize, summarize, and simplify
the data that we receive from a frequency distribution table. The table will show each
teachers individual score from the Likert scale.
Subjects
The subjects of this study will be 50 randomly selected regular education teachers
within the local (El Paso) high schools, specifically we will target the El Paso
Independent School District. The teachers educate grade levels 9th through 12th. The study
Full Inclusion of 11
will consist of 25% male and 25% female teachers ranging from 1st year to veteran (15
years or more). Primarily due to the population within the El Paso area, the ethnicity of
the participants are largely Hispanic but we will attempt to distribute to as many other
ethnic groups (African Americans, Asians, and Caucasians). The Liket scale will be used
because the survey is easily composed and usually easier for testing of validity
(http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html).
Instruments
With the help of a regular education and a special education teacher we will
develop statements and questions for the survey. The instrument will be designed to gain
the viewpoint of full inclusion within the regular education classroom. The instrument
used is the Liket scale. The Likert technique presents a set of attitude statements. The
advantages of using the Likert scale are as followed: relatively quick to collect
information, can be relatively easy simple to construct, can be collected from a large
portion of a group, easy to use, and it gives participants a wide range of choices which
may make them feel more comfortable
(http://www.arches.uga.edu/~porterk/likertscale.html). Subjects
are asked to express
agreement or disagreement of a five-point scale. Each degree of agreement is given a
numerical value from one to five. Thus a total numerical value can be calculated from all
the responses (http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html).
We believe that the validity of the survey will be strongly established prior to the
development and implementation of the study because we consulted and were advised by
persons (regular and special education teachers) who would be considered experts in the
field of inclusion education.
Full Inclusion of 12
Materials
Group members will administer survey to teachers within the high school and the
teacher will be required to complete the survey within 30 minutes after receiving.
Teachers will be given the survey and a pencil in order to complete the study. Upon
completion, group members will collect the survey and pencils to begin analysis on the
responses.
Design
As stated previously, this study will consist of 50teachers within the El Paso
Independent School District. The teacher will be asked to volunteer to take the survey and
will not be paid a fee. We will randomly select the teachers from a list of 100 and divide
25% male and 25% female in hopes of receiving variations in response to the subject of
full inclusion within the regular classroom. We will administer a survey during the
Spring Semester of 2005. We hope by obtaining this information at this time with this
group to obtain information that is as accurate as possible.
Procedure
In the Spring of 2005 prior to the Spring Break holiday week, we will request a
list of 100 teacher both male and female that have taught in regular education classrooms
with full inclusion students presently and within the last two school years. Once we
receive the list, we will use the Medusa General Random Sampling & Research
Randomization Software in order to choose 50 participants
(http://www.randombots.com/). After the 50 participants are chosen, we will send letters
Full Inclusion of 13
requesting each person’s partaking in addressing issues regarding full inclusion in the
regular education classroom by completing a consent form and return in a self addressed
stamped envelope within 10 days of receipt. Enclosed with the consent will be a list of
dates and times in which the survey may be completed. Once the consent forms are
returned, we will determine a place to administer the surveys within Irvin High School.
Most likely the principal will assign us to the library or the auditorium according to the
dates and times that are selected by each teacher. We will be available to meet with
teachers individually and within small groups with no more than 5 people at a given
meeting session. Once the times and places are determined, we plan to meet with the
teachers and administer the surveys with pencils. Once the surveys are completed and
reviewed we will use frequency distribution table in order to receive the individual score
of each teacher. In order organize, simplify, and summarize, each score from the
measurement scale will be placed in the SPSS software.
Limitations of Study
The study will be addressing male and female teachers in the El Paso area
particularly Irvin High School. Regular education teachers that have recently had
experience with severely disabled students within their classrooms will be the focus of
the study. The teachers will range in experience from veteran to first year.
Delimitations
The delimitations of the study will be the use of self addressed stamped envelopes
to consent to taking the survey. Also, the answers to the survey will depend on the
teacher’s point of view and some may have biases toward regular or disabled students. If
Full Inclusion of 14
teachers answer questions with biased ideas the possibility of receiving an accurate
account of full inclusion in the regular education classroom may be inhibited.
Proposed Communication of Findings
In order to contribute to the awareness of the controversial subject of full
inclusion, we will present our finding at the Teacher Professional Development
Conference in February of the following year. We will also present our finding to the
National Educational Computing Conference. We hope to bring knowledge and
understanding to an issue that has been limited in terms of research yet controversial
within the educational community.
Data Analysis
According to Dennis List (2004), SPSS, Statistica, Epi Info, SAS, and Minitab are
the best statistical programs to analyze survey data
(http://www.audiencedialogue.or/excel1.html). The software that we have chosen is the
SPSS statistical program. Nie, Hull and Bent (1968) developed SPSS, a software system
based on the idea of using statistics to turn raw data into information essential to
decision-making (http://www.spss.com/corpinfo/history.htm). The software will be used
to organize, summarize, and simplify the data that we receive from a frequency
distribution table. The table will show each teachers individual score from the Likert
scale.
Time Schedule
The survey will take place after Spring Break of 2005. The complete process from
contacting the school principal to receiving the surveys is expected to take place from
March 21, 2005 through April 29, 2005. Once we have gathered the data, our group will
Full Inclusion of 15
spend the next two weeks completing the frequency distribution table and inputting the
information received from the table in the SPSS software. We estimate that the entire
process will be completed by May 2005. The stats will be presented to local and national
conferences the following year.
Budget
The bases of this project was established and funded through a private company.
The company is very interested in obtaining this information because they advise
legislation for the implementation of policy regarding severely handicapped students in
the regular education classroom. Thus, providing our group with all the necessary funding
that will be needed throughout the study.
Appendix
Protocol Number # _______________________
Institutional Review Board
Research Protocol for Projects Involving Human Subjects
Please refer to the Procedures for Review and Approval of Research Using Human Subjects
including the University Assurance of Compliance statement (available from the Office of
Research and Sponsored Projects [ORSP]) in completing all parts of this form. Sign completed
form and return to ORSP.
To be completed by ORSP. This research project involves humans as subjects in research.
ORSP has determined initially that the research proposed (check one) _____ is _____ is not
_____exempt from coverage under CFR 46.101. The project is exempt under category
______________________________. Expedited _____ or full _____ committee review.
1. Describe the proposed research, including statement of the problem, rationale, who the
subjects will be, how they will be solicited and venue, methods and data analysis strategies.
Full Inclusion of 16
Full inclusion of the severely handicapped in the regular classroom setting will be addressed in this local (El
Paso) study. 50 regular education teachers at the high school level will be given a questionnaire based upon the effects
of inclusion of severely handicapped students in regular education classrooms. The survey will be designed in order to
address the rewards and difficulties to full inclusion. Our group would like to approach and gain knowledge from the
educator’s perspective. Throughout this study, we hope to find out whether full inclusion is an aid or hindrance for
both regular and disabled students alike. The scale will range from 1 “strongly agree” to 6 “strongly disagree” Through
the responses on the survey, we hope to determine perspectives as to whether or not inclusion is helping or hurting
both regular and disable students. SPSS software will be used to organize, summarize, and simplify the data that we
receive from a frequency distribution table. The table will show each teachers individual score from the Likert scale.
2. Explain whether and how women , minorities and children under 21 will be included as
subjects in this study.
Women and minorities both will be used in this survey. They will be the 25 subjects of our 50 total
population of teachers.
3. Describe provisions to adequately protect the rights and welfare of prospective research
subjects.
The subject will be potential experts in the field because they will be teacher within the regular education classroom
that have had experiences within severely handicapped students within the last two years or presently.
4. Describe provisions to insure that pertinent laws and regulations are observed.
We will insure that all interviews take place on school campus, therefore, liability remains on the educational facility.
We will also make sure that we have the principals permission to conduct the survey and be on school property.
5. Attach samples of proposed informed consent forms and questionnaires to be used in research
projects.
See Attachment.
6. Proposed research period: March 21,2005—April 29, 2005
Full Inclusion of 17
7. Funding source (if applicable) The bases of this project was established and funded through a private company.
The company is very interested in obtaining this information because they advise legislation for the implementation of
policy regarding severely handicapped students in the regular education classroom. Thus, providing our group with all
the necessary funding that will be needed throughout the study.
This entire research protocol has been reviewed by the supervising professor (if applicable) and
the department head (or equivalent) for ethical considerations and merit.
Department Chairperson (signature)
___________________________________
___________________
Date
___________________________________
Department Chairperson (printed name)
___________________
Title
Supervising Professor (signature)
___________________________________
___________________
Date
___________________________________
Supervising Professor (printed name)
Principal Investigator (signature)
___________________
Title
___________________________________
___________________
Date
___________________________________
Principal Investigator (printed name)
___________________
Title
___________________________________________________________
Department
___________________________________
Address
____________________________________
Email Address
___________________
Phone Number
Full Inclusion of 18
I certify, as the Principal Investigator of this research project, that by implementing standard
universal Precautions procedures for the handling of blood and hazardous agents, there will be
no risks to the health or welfare of subjects, research assistants or bystanders during the approved
protocol period. I will abide by all requirements of the Departmental Safety Officer and the
University Office of Environmental Health and Safety regarding the use and disposal of blood
products and hazardous agents.
______________________________
Principal Investigator
______________
Date
Submit completed form, with any appropriate letters of consent/approval from other institutions,
tests or questionnaires to ORSP, Administration Bldg. 209 or call the Institutional Coordinator
for Research and review at 747-7939 for additional information.
Ysleta Independent School District
Research Request Form
Protocol #_________
If you have an IRB synopsis, send and cite it on this form.
Full inclusion of the severely handicapped in the regular classroom setting will be addressed in this local (El
Paso) study. 50 regular education teachers at the high school level will be given a questionnaire based upon the effects
of inclusion of severely handicapped students in regular education classrooms. The survey will be designed in order to
address the rewards and difficulties to full inclusion. Our group would like to approach and gain knowledge from the
educator’s perspective. Throughout this study, we hope to find out whether full inclusion is an aid or hindrance for
both regular and disabled students alike. The scale will range from 1 “strongly agree” to 6 “strongly disagree” Through
the responses on the survey, we hope to determine perspectives as to whether or not inclusion is helping or hurting
both regular and disable students. SPSS software will be used to organize, summarize, and simplify the data that we
receive from a frequency distribution table. The table will show each teachers individual score from the Likert scale.
Contact: Sharron Caldwell and Sarah Chavez-Gibson
Affiliation: The University of Texas at El Paso (915) 747-5300 Dr. Cortez
Research purpose summary: (Identify objectives and purpose. Attach copies of interviews, questionnaires,
surveys, and other instruments if relevant).
Full inclusion of the severely handicapped in the regular classroom setting will be addressed in this local (El Paso)
study. 50 regular education teachers at the high school level will be given a questionnaire based upon the effects of
inclusion of severely handicapped students in regular education classrooms. The survey will be designed in order to
address the rewards and difficulties to full inclusion.
Full Inclusion of 19
Sites:.
(http://www.audiencedialogue.or/excel1.html
(http://www.spss.com/corpinfo/history.htm
Disruptions to campus life:
The complete process from contacting the school principal to receiving the surveys is expected to take place from
March 21, 2005 through April 29, 2005.
Beginning and ending dates: March 21, 2005—April 29, 2005
Sample size: (size of sample, grade levels of content areas, gender, any special race/ethnic/SES
requirements, Special Ed., ESL, etc.)
The study will be addressing male and female teachers in the El Paso area particularly Irvin High School. Regular
education teachers that have recently had experience with severely disabled students within their classrooms will be the
focus of the study. The teachers will range in experience from veteran to first year. After the 50 participants are chosen,
we will send letters requesting each person’s partaking in addressing issues regarding full inclusion in the regular
education classroom by completing a consent form and return in a self addressed stamped envelope within 10 days of
receipt.
Analysis of data: (methods for reporting)
According to Dennis List (2004), SPSS, Statistica, Epi Info, SAS, and Minitab are the best statistical
programs to analyze survey data (http://www.audiencedialogue.or/excel1.html). The software that we have chosen is
the SPSS statistical program. Nie, Hull and Bent (1968) developed SPSS, a software system based on the idea of using
statistics to turn raw data into information essential to decision-making (http://www.spss.com/corpinfo/history.htm).
The software will be used to organize, summarize, and simplify the data that we receive from a frequency distribution
table. The table will show each teachers individual score from the Likert scale.
Is this research request part of a contract or grant? If so, please identify.
The bases of this project was established and funded through a private company. The company is very
interested in obtaining this information because they advise legislation for the implementation of policy regarding
severely handicapped students in the regular education classroom. Thus, providing our group with all the necessary
funding that will be needed throughout the study.
Project must return a copy of the summary report to the Office of Assessment, Accountability, and Research at
conclusion.
Full Inclusion of 20
Confidentiality Agreement
The Ysleta Independent School District will keep all student information
anonymous and confidential as required by FERPA, the Family Educational
Rights Privacy Act of 1974 and by District Policy EGB. This document is an
extension of the application (preceding page) to conduct research in the district.
The user identified below promises to create a unique identifier for each student in the sample and
once created, to delete any and all original identifiers (name, PEIMS ID, date of birth) from any
data set (electronic or paper). Uniquely identified data will then be kept locked in such a way that
only the project manager or designee (named in application) will have access to them. All data
will be destroyed at the conclusion of the project or at a time shortly after the conclusion.
This date is anticipated to be ___May 2005______________.
No portion of any data file is to be copied or transferred from the secure server or confidential
paper data file at the site of the company/agency.
I, __Sharron Caldwell and Sarah Chavez-Gibson___, have read the above procedures for
protecting the confidentiality of individual records and agree to abide by the procedures while
using data from the Ysleta Independent School District, El Paso, Texas.
__________________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
__________________________________________________________________
Signature of Witness
Date
Full Inclusion of 21
Consent Form
Full Inclusion of the Severely Handicapped in the Regular Education Classroom
I want to do research on : Full Inclusion of the Severely Handicapped in the Regular
Education Classroom I want to do this because The questionnaire will be formulated in
order to address the advantages and disadvantages to full inclusion. I would like
you to take part in this project. If you decide to do this, you will be
asked to answer statements in reference to full inclusion in the regular education
classrooms. The survey will two weeks to complete. No other medical treatment or
financial compensation for injury from participation in this project is available.
The subject’s response will remain confidential and will not be disclosed for any reason.
If you take part in this project you will help to bring awareness and knowledge to the
controversial subject of full inclusion within the regular education classroom. Taking
part in this project is entirely up to you, and no one will hold it against you if you decided
not to take part.. If you do take part, you may stop at any time.
If you want to know more about this research project, please call me at 800-123-4567,
Sharron Caldwell and Sarah Chavez-Gibson. The project has been approved by
University of Texas at El Paso. If you have questions about UTEP’s, please call Dr Teresa
Cortez @ 747-5300, PO Box 4700, El Paso, TX, 79914. You will get a copy of this
consent form.
Sincerely,
Sharron Caldwell, Researcher
Sarah Chavez-Gibson, Researcher
1. I agree to (take part)/(let my child take part) in this project. I know what (I)/(he or she)
will have
to do and that (I)/(he or she) can stop at any time.
________________________________________________________________________
________________
Full Inclusion of 22
Signature Date
Proposed Survey
1. Inclusion of students with severe disabilities into regular classes is generally an
effective strategy.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
2. Inclusion of students with severe disabilities has lowered my expectations of the entire
class.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STONGLY DISAGREE
3. The inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular classroom can be beneficial
to the other students in the class.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STONGLY DISAGREE
Full Inclusion of 23
4. A mutual collaboration between regular education students and severely handicapped
can be very productive for both types of students.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
5. Severely disabled student can be successful in a regular education class.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
6. Full inclusion in the regular classroom can allow severely disabled students to be
unsuccessful.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
Full Inclusion of 24
7. Inclusion of severely handicapped students hinders my ability to effectively teach my
subject.
A. STONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
8. Inclusion of severely handicapped students hinders the progress and performance of
regular education students.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
9. Time management for task completed by severely handicapped students presents a
problem in my classroom.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
Full Inclusion of 25
10. Inclusion limits the amount of work that can be distributed within the regular
education classroom.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
11. Modifications and assistance for severely handicapped students do not limit the
amount of time spent on my subject.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
12. My class functions at the same pace pre-inclusion.
A. STRONGLY AGREE
B. AGREE
C. UNDECIDED
D. DISAGREE
E. STRONGLY DISAGREE
Full Inclusion of 26
Reference
5 Studies Deemed Scientifically Research Based as Required by NCLB Policy
10 Articles or Other Appropriate Studies
Full Inclusion of 27