JENNIFER KATZ
Katz
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
2
Katz
3
Chapter 1: Introduction
In “Teaching to Diversity (TtD)” we introduced the Three Block Model of universal design for
learning (UDL) as a framework for creating inclusive classrooms. The focus of UDL is to create
accessibility to the social and academic life of the classroom for diverse learners – that is, to
create socially and academically inclusive classrooms and schools. Many provinces have now
included universal design for learning in provincial policy or recommended practices. In a
search of Ministry of Education websites, only Newfoundland and PEI did not make reference to
its use for supporting diverse learners. In fact, New Brunswick goes so far as to say:
“The principle of Universal Design for Learning is the starting point for an inclusive public
education system” (The New Brunswick Department of Education Definition of Inclusion, 2009,
p.3).
While Newfoundland and PEI do not use the term, they too use language that supports the
philosophy of UDL. For instance, Newfoundland, in their Service Delivery Model document
(2011), says,
“Good teaching practices reflected in classrooms include:
…recognition that supporting the unique strengths and needs of a particular student is likely to
benefit other students,”… “creation of classrooms which employ a variety of processes and
strategies responsive to student learning styles,” and “providing access to a wide variety of
learning opportunities and working arrangements.” (p.8)
Such language reflects the understanding that inclusive education can provide access to all, to
the benefit of all – which is the foundational philosophy of UDL.
So how are we doing? Are we being inclusive? Teachers are professionals. Like any profession,
we must be prepared to examine our profession critically, acknowledge the gains we have
made, and recognize where there is further work to do. If we were members of the medical
field, we could be happy that we have improved treatments for cancer and AIDS. Fewer people
are dying, and treatments are improving and have less side-effects. However, neither disease is
cured. There are still few people in the world who have not lost someone to either cancer or
AIDS, and we all know chemotherapy is a brutal experience. We would have to acknowledge
then, that more research is needed, that there is still room to grow and improve. The same is
true for us as teachers when we examine inclusive education. We have improved. More
students are welcomed into regular classrooms than ever before, and academic outcomes for
students with disabilities are improving. However, there are still too many students spending
more than 50% of their day outside of the regular classroom, too many students dropping out
of high school – a sign of alienation and disengagement. We must, therefore, be willing to
acknowledge that more research is needed, that there is still room to grow and improve.
No framework for inclusive education can be effective without an initial focus on inclusive
instructional practice in general education classrooms. Our mistake historically is that when we
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz
4
began the inclusive movement we focused on bringing special education into the general
education classroom. This might have worked, (at least on the surface), when we had one
student being “integrated” into a classroom, with a special education teacher present.
However, when we reach the point where a third of our students require some kind of
additional support to be successful in their classroom (as is now the average in Canadian
schools), due to being second language learners, having learning or social/emotional
challenges, gifts, and so on – this model falls apart. We cannot possibly expect a classroom
teacher to run 8-10 different programs in their classroom, as would be necessary in an
individualized, special education model. Yet, I have seen classrooms where teachers are being
asked to monitor several different behavior intervention programs, adapt instruction for at
least half a dozen different learners with individual learning needs, and be aware of such issues
as sensory overload/integration, students with anxiety disorders, and more. This is too much
for any one teacher to manage. However, we also cannot afford to provide multiple special
education teachers in every classroom. As a result, what has happened across North America is
that we have handed the education of our neediest learners to our least trained staff –
educational assistants (EA’s) – because it is cheaper. Research has long noted that this model is
ineffective – it stigmatizes students socially, and limits educational opportunity (Giangreco,
2010). This educational model has resulted from the belief that each individual student requires
individualized adaptations or modifications to their educational program, and thus needs one
to one staff to support them, and the economic reality of how that can be achieved. It is not an
educationally sound practice, it is a fiscally driven decision. It is common sense to recognize that
struggling learners need a teacher!
The principle of universal design for learning is that instructional practices can be designed that
allow multiple learners to enter into the learning, rather than needing separate programs for
each. In Ontario’s “Education for all” (2005), this aspect of UDL is described,
“UDL is intended to ensure that teaching will meet the needs of all students. This does not mean
planning instruction for students with average achievement levels, and then making after-thefact modifications to meet the special needs of certain students. UDL encourages teachers to
develop a class profile and then plan, from the beginning, to provide means and pedagogical
materials that meet the needs of all students and not only those with special needs.” (p.11)
This does NOT mean a “one size fits all” approach. Rather, it means creating multiple entry
points, which all students, with or without disabilities, can access. Nova Scotia’s “Fact sheet on
inclusion” mentions this in saying that in inclusive schools, we would see “a focus on outcomes
for all students that students work toward in a variety of ways.” In other words – all students
have outcomes/expectations, but they will achieve these to varying degrees, and in
differentiated ways.
In architecture, this is analogous to the idea that buildings often now have a choice for entry of
a ramp, or stairs – this allows multiple users to choose how they prefer to enter, but all enter
through the same door, and arrive in the same lobby. While the ramp may initially have been
built for people with physical disabilities in wheelchairs, others may choose to use it – and
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz
5
many benefit, such as parents with strollers, people with rollerboard briefcases or suitcases,
and so on. Research has identified practices such as inquiry based learning, differentiated
instruction and assessment, and cooperative learning that act as ramps to the learning and
curriculum in our classrooms – they allow learners who could not learn well through the
traditional text based, independent seatwork, pencil and paper activities to successfully master
concepts and skills in ways that work better for their kind of mind. In so doing, students are
able not only to engage academically – they are able to engage socially, as they join with their
peers in the life of the classroom, rather than being separated and instructed one to one by an
EA. This has profound effects on student’s self-concept, social relationships, and learning (Katz,
in press; Katz & Porath, 2011). Thus, in order for universal design for learning to be
implemented, general and special education teachers require training in inclusive instructional
practices that can provide the ramps for diverse learners, while also making teachers’
workloads more manageable.
According to the Canadian Teachers Federation (in Brackenreed, 2011), 47% of teachers quit
before retirement age, citing stress and lack of support as reasons. In general, teachers support
the philosophy of inclusion – however, they feel ill equipped to teach diverse learners, and
stressed by their perceived inability to “meet the needs” (Katz, 2012a). In fact, a positive
attitude has been shown to increase burnout, perhaps because those who believe strongly in
the value of inclusion are most stressed by their self-perceived inability to make it work
(Talmor, Reiter, and Feigin, 2005). Special education / Resource Teachers often have
unmanageable caseloads, and classroom teachers are then left to try to cope on their own with
increasingly diverse classrooms. Losing one half of the workforce is destructive to everyone –
the system, the students, and the teachers themselves.
This is why it is so critical that we focus first on inclusive instructional practice. It will serve to:
1. Improve student outcomes
2. Reduce the caseloads of special education/resource teachers.
3. Increase self-efficacy and job satisfaction for general classroom teachers, as they
develop the expertise to design a learning community that creates a positive classroom
climate, reduces challenging behavior, and improves educational achievement, without
overloading teachers.
In Teaching to Diversity we described in detail the ways in which a general education teacher
can do just that using the Three Block Model of UDL. This model of UDL expands traditional UDL
foci on technology and differentiation to explore both the social and academic practices of the
classroom. Block one sets the foundation for inclusion through the Respecting Diversity (RD)
program, with the goal of building a class climate that respects diversity and develops a positive
self-concept in all students. Block two includes a planning framework and teaching practices
that allow for student choice so that students are able to develop conceptual understanding,
and access activities and materials in ways that work for them. This process synthesizes
evidence based practices for planning, instruction, and assessment of diverse learners in ways
that reduce teacher workload and facilitate teachers’ ability to instruct small groups at their
instructional level. This is a key component of the model – it is not “one more thing” for
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz
6
teachers to do, rather, it is a synthesis of all the things they have been asked to do, in a
practical, do-able way. The UDL classroom created by this model maintains the high
expectations set by provincial curriculum for all students, while supporting teachers selfefficacy and reducing the workload of trying to plan multiple programs (i.e. adapting multiple
programs for individual students). In block three, the systematic and structural reforms needed
to increase the efficacy of inclusion are delineated.
One teacher commented:
“It makes my life as a teacher so much easier and I marvel at how I didn’t figure it out myself.”
The outcome of combining evidence based practices such as differentiating instruction,
teaching to essential understandings, inquiry, and assessment for learning together in one
comprehensive model is beginning to be revealed. Studies show the Three Block Model
produces significant positive results for students in grades one to twelve in terms of student
engagement, autonomy and positive interactions with peers and teachers (in press; 2012c),
including students who are disengaged, and struggling behaviorally and academically (Glass,
2013). Students involved in these learning communities have reported an increase in their
feelings of belonging and improved self-concept, and greater willingness to include others
(Katz, Porath, Bendu, & Epp, 2012). Overall classroom climates have improved with increased
pro-social behaviour and a reduction in aggressive and disruptive behaviour (Katz & Porath,
2011). It is particularly important to note that results were significant in the high school setting,
as previous studies have emphasized the difficulty of effectively implementing inclusion in
secondary settings (Mastropieri, 2001; McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002). Through the
planning of instructional environments that increase accessibility, teacher workload is reduced,
as they do not need to plan separate programs for students who cannot currently access the
regular curriculum. Teachers reported an increased sense of self-efficacy regarding the ability to
include students with disabilities, and meet the needs of diverse learners when implementing
this framework. The evidence is mounting that the Three Block Model of Universal Design for
Learning can be effective for all (Epp & Katz, in press).
Teaching to Diversity spoke at great length about how special education / resource teachers
and general classroom teachers can collaborate to support inclusive classrooms. None of this is
meant to deny that even with the “ideal” inclusive classroom (as if such a thing is possible), we
would still have students who required very specialized supports in order to be successful in
their classroom. The Response to Intervention (RTI) model was introduced as a means to
understand the scaffolding of supports needed in an inclusive school system. The model set
forth in TtD makes clear that the planning and instructional process discussed in the book is
about improving our tier one, universal programming. This does not mean tier two and tier
three supports are not recognized and valued, however, at present we have far too many
students requiring these supports, and thus we are overloading our support personnel, and
leaving our classroom teachers feeling overwhelmed. Just take, for instance, the issues around
struggling readers. According to the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS),
3.2% of our students have severe learning disabilities. These students will undoubtedly require
some tier two or tier three supports for literacy instruction. But when you ask classroom
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz
7
teachers how many of their students are not reading at grade level, numbers often range from
25-75%! With only 3% actually having a disability – this means we are failing to teach 22-72% of
our students how to read who have no actual disability. Yes, some of this is environmental
(exposure to language, being read to in early childhood, etc.), but we must take responsibility
for a significant piece of this shortfall – we have failed to differentiate our literacy instruction
and use methods that allow students to learn how to read in ways that work for them. This is
just one example of areas in which our tier one, classroom based instruction needs to expand
to be accessible to diverse learners.
Having said all of that – there is a place for tier two and tier three instruction. The New
Brunswick policy, in fact, goes on to articulate this well,
“The principle of Universal Design for Learning is the starting point for an inclusive public
education system. This principle holds that the needs of the greatest number of students be met
by maximizing the usability of programs, services, practices and learning environments. When
Universal Design for Learning alone is insufficient to meet the needs of an individual student or
groups of students, accommodations are required, both ethically and legally.” (p.3)
However, there are differences in how the role of the special educator / resource teacher is
enacted in a universally designed instructional framework. Here the special education and
resource teacher (RT) roles divide. A resource teacher in a UDL model is exactly that – a
resource – and not a special education teacher. That is, the roles between general education
and resource teacher blur. Both teachers become facilitators of an inclusive learning
community, responsible for the social and academic engagement of ALL the students in that
community. There are no longer “your kids” and “my kids,” only our kids, and like any good
parents, both will play a role, albeit different, with every child. In other words, this blurring
does not mean we don’t recognize areas of expertise or skill in individual teachers – father and
mother both bring different things to the raising of a child, but both share in the nurturing of all
their children. In Newfoundland’s “Service Delivery Model for Students with Exceptionalities”
(2011), this fundamental change is recognized in the statement:
“The inclusive model embodies a more collaborative approach to teaching and learning. Within
a school community, all members are encouraged to share responsibility for the learning and
well-being of all students.” (p.5)
In this way, resource teachers become partners with classroom teachers in the creation of
inclusive learning communities – co-planning, co-teaching, and co-assessing instructional
programs. As time goes forward, both teachers monitor the social and academic progress of all
students, and when needed, provide supports to insure success. This will significantly improve
student success, and reduce the numbers of students requiring tier two and tier three supports
– that is, the caseload of RT’s, and obviously, it is preferable for all involved, especially the
student! If a student, despite powerful tier one instruction, is struggling, both teachers will
meet to assess possible strengths and barriers, and plan supports, deciding on whether the
student requires tier two intervention. The expertise of the resource teacher may be called
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz
8
upon at this point to provide resources, and conduct ecobehavioral observations or some
specialized assessments, in order to guide tier two programming (more on this in chapter __).
When, despite both teachers’ best efforts, a student continues to experience significant
difficulties being successful socially and/or academically, a team should be gathered,
coordinated by the RT, to provide intensive, individualized assessment and programming. It is
at this stage that an IEP is developed – only after classroom based assessment and
interventions have not fully succeeded in supporting the student in question.
In the chapters that follow, this process, and the skills and concepts that underlie it, will be
explained in detail. This is a fundamental shift in the definition of the role of the resource
teacher, away from adapting and modifying individual programs, writing countless IEP’s, and
conducting pull out remediation – to a focus on supporting student success IN THEIR
CLASSROOM. At all tiers, this remains the goal – it is not about fixing the student, it is about
finding and providing the supports the student requires in order to be successfully socially and
academically included. To begin, we will review a few fundamental concepts from TtD and the
Three Block Model of UDL, including our definition of what social and academic inclusion is,
how the Three Block Model fits with traditional UDL frameworks such as the one from CAST,
and how UDL and RTI can fit together in an inclusive system to redefine the role of the RT. From
there, we will delve into each of the three tiers, the role of the RT within them, and the
knowledge and skills necessary to be able to implement them successfully.
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz
9
Chapter 2: What Do We Mean By “Inclusive”?
Key Terms & Concepts
● Social inclusion
● Social exclusion
● Academic inclusion
● Academic exclusion
● Inclusive Education
● Salamanca Statement
Essential Understanding
Inclusion means that every child is a part of the social and academic life of the classroom and
school, has the chance to feel good about themselves and what they contribute to the learning
and social community, has the opportunity to experience academic challenge, success and
growth, and feels a sense of belonging and interconnectedness.
What is inclusion?
Inclusion, or inclusive education, has been a global consideration for more than three decades.
Most educators agree that ideally all children and youth would be included in our school
systems and classrooms, however, many doubt that this is possible. Educators have reported
that they are constrained by limited resources, increasing student diversity, and lack of training
(Bennett, 2009). So how do we return imagination, inspiration, and passion to the dialogue
about, and implementation of, inclusive education? How do we show students, parents,
teachers, and administrators that not only is inclusive education possible, it can be achieved in
spite of the perceived “actualities” of budgets, systems, and student diversity?
Imagining begins with being visionary, with stretching beyond what we think are the limits of
the possible. Teachers, especially resource teachers, like to be realists, which means focusing
on the practical and the “how to.” However, if we don’t have a vision, we will get caught up in
the limitations of the day to day functioning of “the system”, or the “this is how it is” mentality,
and lose sight of our goals, dreams, and vision. So take a moment, and envision your ideal
inclusive classroom and school. What does it sound like, look like, and feel like? What kind of
learning is taking place? How are the educators, students, and their families interacting with
one another? You must know what you are striving for, in order to filter all the various
strategies and frameworks being suggested in the professional development world. If you know
where you are trying to go, you can attend professional development workshops, read books
and resources such as this one, and decide whether they will be useful in taking YOU, and YOUR
STUDENT(S), where you want to go. If you do not have a clear vision, it is easy to be
overwhelmed with the many strategies that you will encounter in a teaching career.
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 10
Imagine all students feeling like they belong, like who they are is valued, that they are “seen”
and understood. Imagine a school in which teachers and students have truly learned to value all
the different things each has to offer, and students know their contribution counts. Imagine a
place in which all students are challenged to learn, to grow, and to reach their full potential.
Imagination, in this context, is more a synonym for vision than for creativity, although, of
course, one can have a creative vision. What is your vision?
Inclusive education has often been defined as including those who have obviously been
excluded – that is, students with disabilities. Similarly, “diverse learners” has often been a
synonym for students with disabilities, or students from culturally and linguistically minority
populations. But inclusive education is so much more than that!
Inclusive education means just that, inclusive: providing an education in which ALL students are
welcomed and included. The truth is, we are all diverse. How I learn is different than how you
do. My background knowledge, life experiences, personality and interests are different than
yours. In any room, you have just as many different learners as there are people. All children
are diverse: fat/thin, rich/poor, personalities, ethnicities, languages, family constructions, and
learning styles all contribute to the makeup of a diverse classroom. Inclusive education has to
be about ALL kids. There is no point in working to include one population, only to find we are
then not meeting the needs of another.
The goal is providing high quality education to ALL students!
To look forward, one must know what is already behind them. To imagine what inclusive
education can be then, we have to first look at where we’ve come from, what it should not be,
and what the issues are that we have confronted thus far in the journey as educators, and as an
educational system. Sometimes, it feels like we are stuck in cement when it comes to inclusive
education. But when you step out and take a look back, you realize how much progress we
have actually made. At one time, many youth who now attend schools either never attended at
all (e.g., those with disabilities, some from remote areas, etc.), or left before entering high
school. Many students were told flat out they were not welcome due to disability, race,
language, gender, or many other demographic factors. Many of my parents’ generation left
school in grade four or six to return to the farm, or an apprenticeship, because school “was not
for them.” Today, those students are welcomed in our schools. However, we still have room to
grow. Like all professions – we have made progress, but we must not be afraid to realize new
innovations will take place in our field, and we will change, and get better, with them. Two
themes emerge in conversations and literature within modern educational and larger societal
research that outline key elements underlying a vision for inclusive education: Social and
Academic Inclusion.
Social Inclusion/Exclusion
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 11
There are many students in our schools who do not have a disability, and are not from a
minority population, who if asked would tell you they feel like they have no friends, that
nobody likes them, or that nobody even notices them. Social inclusion/exclusion in the larger
community refers most often to populations that have been marginalized, but in schools, this is
not necessarily the case. Students from marginalized groups may be more likely to be socially
excluded, but they are certainly not the only students who are. Social inclusion involves all
students feeling a sense of belonging and connectedness (Koster, Nakken, Pijl, & van Houten,
2009). Students who are socially included are greeted in the halls as they enter in the morning
by friends and teachers, have peers to interact with during breaks, are desired partners and
group members for learning activities, and are involved in school teams, clubs, and leadership.
Social inclusion is about recognizing and valuing diversity, thus for education, social inclusion
means that all students have the opportunity to be part of school communities and to learn and
grow alongside their peers. This aspect of inclusion is recognized in many province’s definitions
of inclusion. For Instance Alberta policy states that: “In Alberta, inclusion in the education
system is about ensuring that each student belongs and receives a quality education no matter
their ability, disability, language, cultural background, gender, or age.” Note the use of the word
“belongs”!
While social inclusion is not an issue limited to marginalized populations, there are two
populations that have been shown to be significantly more likely to be socially excluded –
students with exceptionalities, and students who are First Nations, Metis, or Inuit (FNMI).
Social Inclusion & Students with Exceptionalities
When we place students in segregated classrooms, or have them working at the back of a
classroom – they are prevented from forming social relationships with their peers, and thus are
socially excluded. When we bus children to a school outside of their neighborhood, we ensure
that not only these students, but also their parents, will be socially excluded from the
community. Parents often meet in the halls of our schools, volunteering for school activities,
and when forming “play dates” for their kids. When a student with a disability is bussed
elsewhere, their parents do not meet the parents of other students living in the neighborhood,
and the children also do not know each other. This means that after school, on holidays, and
during the summer – when they are at the local park or community center – there is no
relationship, no community supporting their inclusion. Parents of children with special needs
are already often isolated – this furthers the issue. This results in segregation of students with
exceptional needs, negative classroom climates and peer interactions, increases in alienation
and bullying, and a reduction in educational achievement for all students (Symes & Humphrey,
2010).
Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, (1999) report on the case of “Melinda,” a girl with a
developmental disability who moved from special classes to an inclusive classroom.
Subsequently, Melinda presented at a local conference on inclusion, and, when a moderator
asked her “What was the difference between the special class and the regular class?” she
replied, “When I was in a special class, I used to put my head down on the desk. I used to look
out the door and watch the kids go by, and now they’re my friends” (p. 15). Melinda’s
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 12
experience was so profound, she wrote a letter to testify on the least restrictive environment
debate for the Education Committee of the State Assembly. In the letter, she referred to being
able to learn from watching “what her friends do,” and being “taught by her friends and
teaching them, as well.”
Students who are gifted also often struggle to fit in socially with their peers. When advanced
cognitive ability combines with intense emotionality/sensitivity, it is hard to determine who
one’s peers really are. Are the students who have the same interests as them their peers, even
if they are years older? Not really, because those students have a different level of social
maturity. Are their chronological age peers their “peers?” Not really, because their interests
and perceptions are significantly different. Combined with the issues of being divergent and
intensely emotional (ie thinking differently and reacting more intensely to emotional
situations), students who are gifted often feel isolated, different, and misunderstood.
Social Inclusion & Students who are FNMI
Most First Nations cultures believe that children are a gift from the creator. The job of a parent,
and the community, is to treasure that gift, and nurture the affinities and talents of that child
on all four levels of the sacred circle (medicine wheel) - spiritually, physically, mentally, and
emotionally so the child can have a “good life” (Mino Pimatisiwin). So the question is: How do
we help children, ALL children, have a good life? What does “a good life” mean? What does it
mean, in narrower terms, in school?
For many Aboriginal parents, the western school system is antithetical to this belief. They
believe the child will naturally follow the path they were meant to. If the child followed around
the Shaman, then an apprenticeship relationship would naturally occur. On the other hand, if
the child was drawn to the artist, hunter, dancer, and so on then this was nurtured. It was
differentiation, and multiple intelligences, at its finest. But we ask these parents to force their
children to do things the child does not want to do (e.g. homework). We write IEP's that focus
on what the child can't do, and ignore what they can and want to do. This makes "the system"
seem backward, and then we pass judgment when parents "don't support the program." These
parents love their children, they just don’t love a system that focuses on deficits rather than
strengths, and has a history of abused power in relations with First Nations. It appears as a
system that wants to find the negative in FNMI children (truth is, in all kids).
The Three Block Model of UDL focuses on developing a balance of wellness in the mental,
spiritual, physical, and emotional aspects of life. As such, it can help to make our schools and
school systems feel more culturally relevant, compassionate, and inviting to FNMI families. For
us to improve engagement and achievement for FNMI youth, students and parents must
recognize their culture, values, and ways of being - that is, feel at home in the school. Many
provinces have begun to recognize this. In Saskatchewan, for instance, science units with
Aboriginal perspectives are being created with the goal, “To make Western science and
engineering accessible to Aboriginal students in ways that nurture their own cultural identities;
that is, so students are not expected to set aside their culture's view of the material world
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 13
when they study science at school.” This is critically important –as frequently Aboriginal beliefs
are dismissed as “legends” or “myths.”
1. In block one: Social & Emotional Learning, the
Respecting Diversity (RD) program seeks to develop a
sense of pride and dignity in all students – knowing that
who they are, what they have to offer the community is
of value. The first four lessons empower students
through reflection on and a growing awareness of their
strengths and affinities, and how they can use these to
become a valued member of the learning, and larger
community. In the second four lessons, students
develop a sense of belonging, of being included and of
being cared for, of interconnectedness with something
larger than ourselves. In these final lessons, the focus
changes to respecting diverse others, being inclusive
and cooperative, and assuming leadership when
needed. This fits well with the balanced perspective of
the medicine wheel.
Technology Spotlight
To watch instructional videos on how to use the RD program in your class, visit:
http://www.threeblockmodel.com/respecting-diversity-program-videos.html
2. In block two: Inclusive Instructional Practice, instruction is focused on utilizing students
strengths, and developing the resiliency to persevere through challenges with the
support of your learning team/community, a fundamental value of most FN's cultures
(ie that community is critical to resiliency). This differs significantly from the western
value on "independence" - which expects children to be able to face a learning challenge
on their own and "keep trying." For many students who struggle with verbal linguistic
tasks, this expectation means that they spend five hours a day, five days a week, FOR
TWELVE YEARS, doing what they can't do - and are expected to "keep trying", and
behave "appropriately" (ie don't object - or we will label you oppositional)! Then we
wonder why student disengage! FNMI cultures emphasize interdependence, which in
schools, means using small group/cooperative structures (called "learning teams" in the
Three Block Model), to create a true learning community. The use of multiple
intelligences as a framework for differentiation also ensures body-kinesthetic, hands-on
learning which develops skills and connects to both the physical as well as the
intellectual and emotional realms of the medicine wheel, as many learners learn best
this way, and become accepted members of the learning community rather than the
student who "can't sit still" and "can't do the work." Thematic combinations with "big
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 14
ideas" often focus on existential issues related to sustainability, and help cultivate
students’ awareness of global issues and connections.
3. In block three: Systems & Structures, distributed leadership invites community input,
and student leadership. This resembles the councils used by many FNMI cultures. A
respect for the elders of the community, and their wisdom, is critical to creating a
relationship with parents and community. Collaborative, co-teaching structures
resemble the community collaboration seen in FN cultures, and the IEP process put
forward in the Three Block Model of UDL focuses on developing students strengths, and
strategies for coping with challenges, rather than remediation. Put together, as one Cree
elder stated:
"You have synthesized the wisdom of our grandmothers," (Elder Gwen Merrick).
What is Academic Inclusion/Exclusion?
Academic inclusion is more than just geography. It does not just mean placement of students
together in a classroom. It means that all students learn in interaction with each other, focused
on concepts and skills in the general curriculum. When we relegate a student to “life skills”,
decide they cannot learn, and deny them access to the curriculum (including literacy and
numeracy), or instruct them only in one to one situations with adults in the back of a classroom,
hallways, and libraries, we exclude them academically.
In the case of Melinda, mentioned earlier, Melinda’s literacy skills developed well beyond
expectations in the inclusive classroom. At age 15, Melinda was described as the lowest
functioning student in her special education classroom. In this classroom, Melinda’s instruction
focused on basic reading, writing, and math. Melinda had developed “an aversion to reading”
(p. 11) and read at a beginning grade two level. After being included, Melinda demonstrated
tremendous growth in oral language, reading, and written literacy. This growth was so striking
that she was invited to speak to the House Committee on the Least Restrictive Environment,
and was able to attend college on a modified program after graduation. She read college
textbooks written at a grade seven level or above with complete comprehension. As Melinda
reached adulthood, her mother stated:
“I attribute the growth to higher expectation on the part of everybody…people expected her to
be retarded and then they gave her activities that they would expect retarded people to do.
Those tests and statistics really are not a good forecaster of what any child can do, if given the
proper opportunities, role models, and settings.” (p. 19)
Melinda’s case indicates that teachers in her inclusive classroom made efforts to include her in
academic learning with her peers. However, in many cases, while efforts are made to include
students with significant disabilities socially, little attempt is made to educate them, or include
them academically. In a study by Carroll et al (2011), “exemplary” schools with reputations for
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 15
being inclusive were found to have extensive programming related to social inclusion for
students with significant disabilities, but “explicit instruction for students for the most severe
disabilities was almost non-existent” (p.124).
One of Canada’s leading experts on the inclusion of students with autism and developmental
disabilities, Pat Mirenda, once said,
“I think we made a mistake arguing inclusion on the basis of social justice. It led to people
believing that as long as they wheeled the student into the room, and they were smiling and had
a friend, that was all that mattered. But students could be happy and make a friend at home or
in the community. They come to school to learn. ALL students.”
In addition, it is important to note that many of our most capable students are also being
excluded, as they, too, are not being exposed to appropriate curriculum and instructional
activities and often feel isolated socially (Jackson, 1998; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2010). Again, there
are still far too many students, with and without disabilities, who are neither appropriately
academically challenged, nor engaged.
Inclusive Education
In 1994, representatives of 92 nations gathered in Salamanca, Spain, to discuss inclusive
education under the umbrella of the United Nations (UNESCO, 1994). The resulting “Salamanca
Statement” based its philosophy on the right to an education for all children. The framework
adopted a guiding principle that schools, “should accommodate all children regardless of their
physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic, or other conditions” (p. 6). The Salamanca
Statement further recognized “the necessity and urgency of providing education for children,
youth and adults with special educational needs within the regular education system” (UNESCO,
1994, p. viii). Yet, students who are Aboriginal, students who are culturally and linguistically
diverse, students with a variety of social issues or disengagement from learning, and students
with disabilities continue to be excluded from our classrooms.
What then is our vision for the future? Is it possible to have a school system in which every child
is a part of the social and academic life of their classroom, school, and community? When I say
every child, I mean every – no exceptions! Is this possible, even given the actualities of current
conditions in the system? The answer, is yes.
Even before we knew how to do it well, inclusive education had positive outcomes for all
involved. Early stages of research explored the outcomes of including students with disabilities
on their typical and gifted peers. The fear was that students with disabilities would negatively
impact their peers, because they would require teacher time, and changes in the complexity
and pace of the curriculum. Research has not borne this out, however. Comparisons of the
literacy and numeracy skills, scores on standardized tests, college entrance, and other academic
scores of typical and gifted students in classrooms with and without students with disabilities
are identical, even those including students with significant behavioral challenges (Bru, 2009;
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 16
Crisman, 2008; Kambouka, Farrell, Dyson, & Kaplan, 2007). This research has been replicated
over decades and across countries (Curcic, 2009)! In some cases, research has shown that
students with and without disabilities make significantly greater gains in reading, writing, and
mathematics in inclusive classrooms (Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004). It is clear that the presence
of students with disabilities, including challenging behavior, does not negatively impact the
learning of other students.
The next stage of research explored the outcomes of inclusive education for students with
disabilities. Around the world, students with disabilities demonstrate improved academic
outcomes, including literacy, numeracy, general knowledge, and higher order thinking when
placed in inclusive settings as compared to peers matched for level of disability in segregated
classrooms (Katz & Mirenda, 2002). Perhaps more surprisingly given the common focus of
segregated classrooms on life skills, students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms also
outperformed their peers in segregated classrooms in adaptive/life skills, and vocational and
academic competence (Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010; Myklebust, 2006). The role of peer
models is a powerful one! In a national study of outcomes related to inclusive education in
Canada, students in inclusive settings were reported to be in better general health, progressing
more in school, interacting better with peers, and more frequently looked forward to going to
school than those in less inclusive settings (Timmons & Wagner, 2008).
Despite the actualities of limited training, reductions in resources, and pressures to standardize
achievement and “accountability,” we have made progress in implementing inclusive
education, and children around the world are benefiting. Imagine the possibilities…
In child development, three stages of social awareness and play are often described:
1. Egocentrism – the infant is only aware of themselves. They cry to be fed, changed, etc.
without awareness of others needs, contributions, and so on.
2. Parallel Play – the toddler becomes aware of others, and imitates them. When they see
an older sibling playing with a toy such as a car, they too will pick up a car, and imitate
the play of the sibling. However, they will play alongside the sibling, not with the sibling
– they do not think to push their car over to the other and have a race or develop an
imaginary game.
3. Interactive play – the young child becomes aware of the joy of connection – they play
with others, engaging in dialogue and shared experience.
Our history as inclusive educators has followed the path of child development. In the early
stages, we were egocentric, unaware of anyone who did not fit our needs and desires – we
simply excluded them (i.e., we placed them in institutions, special schools, etc.). As we began to
mature, we learned how to parallel play: we placed special classes in regular schools, so they
could live alongside us, but not with us. Sometimes, we placed children in a regular classroom,
but their program was a parallel program. They did math when we did math, but a different
math, and usually with an educational assistant, not in interaction with their peers. It is time,
now, to grow into maturity. To achieve “interactive inclusion” – a mature sense of inclusion and
interaction - to develop a system in which we all grow and learn in interaction with each other,
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012
Katz 17
celebrating what our diversity brings, sharing our triumphs and challenges, and creating
compassionate learning communities for all of our children/youth. It can be done.
In Teaching to Diversity, we laid out the “how” of creating such a classroom, an interactively
inclusive classroom. This book focuses on the role of the resource teacher in this endeavor. As
such, it will be helpful for the reader to review TtD before continuing here, though not
essential.
© Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2012