What the Research Says: Inclusive Education
Achieves Results
June 26, 2007
From Barb Trader, Executive Director of TASH. Attached is a summary of research
findings on the positive impact of inclusion.
Following is the letter that the National Down Syndrome Society submitted today on
behalf of NDSS, NDSC, TASH, NCLD and the Advocacy Institute regarding the article in
yesterday’s Wall Street Journal on inclusion.
___________________________________
The undersigned organizations are writing in response to the June 25th article on
inclusion by John Hechinger. We are appalled that this article focuses only on teachers
who blame the children for their job frustrations without showcasing the many others
who are avid supporters of inclusion. There are studies documenting the academic and
social benefits of inclusion for students with and without disabilities, especially when
positive behavioral supports and supplementary aids and services are provided.
Students and teachers would also benefit from “universal design for learning,” which
focuses on designing curriculum, instructional materials, teaching methods and
assessments for the diverse and inclusive classroom. The least restrictive environment
provisions of IDEA have been in effect for many years, but some school systems have
done nothing in those years to prepare their teachers. Instead of blaming children for
the frustration of teachers who have received inadequate training and whose students
are not receiving the appropriate supports, people should be outraged that these
children have been denied their rights and teachers have been denied adequate tools
with which to do their jobs.
Advocacy Institute
National Center for Learning Disabilities
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
TASH
What the Research Says: Inclusive Education
Achieves Results

Best practice emphasizes integrated therapy and services rather than either a
pullout direct service model or a multidisciplinary approach with separate and nonoverlapping service delivery plan[1]. When documented as necessary, students are
“pulled-out” for specialized services only when the same skill cannot be taught in
the general ed setting, not the reverse proposed by this model, which is “pulled-in”
to visit peers in the general ed setting.

“Part-time is different, not just less”[2]. Children are placed at higher risk for
exclusion under models which misuse the term inclusion to define “visiting” or
forced interaction with peers without disabilities. It is well documented that children
are very aware of, and impacted by, the social construct of the school - specifically
class and subject grouping. Splitting from heterogeneous groups for specialized
instruction is an accepted part of the school day in which all children participate.
Bringing children to the school is not. This practice serves to damage both individual
students’ sense of belonging and achievement, as well as the whole sense of
community within a class and school.

Students labeled as having severe and multiple disabilities may appear to have such
challenging impairments, and their needs appear to be either so basic (e.g. simple
communication skills; appropriate manipulation skills; learning to sit) or so complex
(e.g. requiring nursing intervention, G-Tubes, etc) that teaching these students in
highly academic, typical classrooms seems improbable, and at the least, impractical.
YET – research and best practice shows that this type of student learns more with
the almost constant stimulation and numerous and spontaneous opportunities to
interact with peers. Special educators, no matter how highly motivated or skilled,
cannot provide the necessary ongoing stimulation in self-contained classrooms.[3]

Students labeled with severe disabilities who receive special education services in
classes alongside their non-disabled peers achieved higher gains on the Scales of
Independent Behaviors (SIB) and Assessment of Social Competence (ASC) that those
in the self-contained group. These findings challenge the common assumption that
that self-contained settings result in superior gains on individual IEP related skill
domains.[4]

As long as students are in segregated buildings and classrooms, the most typical
interactions observed will be with teachers, therapists and other service providers.
Assigning students without disabilities responsibilities such as tutoring and helping
actually interferes with the evolution of natural peer relationships[5], and fosters
the notions of charity and pity; not value, belonging, and achievement.

Best practice in systemic educational reform increases the capacity of systems to
provide quality education that achieves results for all students in the least restrictive
environment. Colorado (71.09%), Vermont (81.63%), New Hampshire (79.17%)
Oregon (74.64%), are considered true models for education, and are states with the
highest percentage of students with disabilities educated with non-disabled
peers[6]. The districts in these states have successfully changed the role of the
intermediate unit from providing direct services to providing technical and
programmatic support, and moving students previously served in the intermediate
or regional unit back to their local school districts.[7]

Best practices models that have been successfully implemented in school districts
across the United States include the consultant approach, teaming, and coteaching.[8] The professional expertise of trained special education staff would be
much better used in these approaches through a model that embraces the provision
technical and programmatic support to general education settings in their home
schools.

Families (and often educators) are more likely to be supportive of inclusion if
socialization is an important educational goal for the student, if the student had
relatively few support needs in the areas of behavior support or specialized services,
and if the student had previously participated in general education.[9]

Systems change is most effective when there is longitudinal planning across all levels
of the system toward education in the least restrictive environment. This includes,
but is not limited to: State policies, such as a placement-neutral special education
finance formula; noncategorical personnel certification, or certification standards
requiring classes in inclusion or collaboration; effective use and training of
personnel; effective statewide testing programs; the presence of other State-level
reform efforts that are compatible with systems change (e.g., pre-referral, sitebased management, needs-based programming); and, State efforts to close separate
schools and/or regional special education programs and transition students back to
their home districts[10]
[1] Meyer, L.M., Eichinger, J., & Downing J. Program Quality Indicators (PQI): A Checklist
of Most Promising Practices in Educational Programs for Students with Severe
Disabilities, Revised Edition (1992) The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps
(TASH).
[2] Schnorr, R.F. Peter? He Comes and Goes…”: First Graders’ Perspectives on a PartTime Mainstream Student (1990) Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 15, 231-240.
[3] Downing, June E. (2002) Educating Students with Diverse Strengths and Needs
Together. In Including Students with Severe and Multiple Disabilities in Typical
Classrooms. pp.4-5. Baltimore : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
[4] Fisher, M., & Meyer, LH. (2002) Development and Social Competence After Two
Years for Students Enrolled in Inclusive and Self-Contained Educational Programs.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 165-174.
[5] Kishi, G.S., & Meyer, L.H. (1994) What Children Report and Remember: A Six-Year
Follow-Up of the Effects of Social Contact of Peers with and Without Severe Disabilities.
Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 277-289.
[6] 23rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA To Assure the Free
Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities (2001), US Department of
Education Table AB2, p. A-98.
[7] Statewide Systems Change for Students with Severe Disabilities, OSEP Annual
Report,:To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities
– 1996.
[8] Resource: Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. D. (1997). Inclusion and school reform:
Transferring America ‘s classrooms. Baltimore : P. H. Brookes Publishing.
[9] Palmer, D.S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., & Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Views on
inclusion for their children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 4, 467-479.
[10] Statewide Systems Change for Students with Severe Disabilities, OSEP Annual
Report: To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities
– 1996.
Benefits | Info | Join | Other Sites | News | Feedback | Calendar | Home