Educational Articles - Summary
Hiroshi
bartz_et_al._2015.pdf
Including Learners with Low-Incidence Disabilities Facilitating Supports and Services for Learners with Low-Incidence Disabilities
Jody Marie Bartz Jennifer Kurth Matthew Wangeman
Article information: To cite this document: Jody Marie Bartz Jennifer Kurth Matthew Wangeman . "Facilitating Supports and Services for Learners with Low-Incidence Disabilities" In Including Learners with Low-Incidence Disabilities. Published online: 04 Feb 2015; 111-136. Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620140000005005
Downloaded on: 18 February 2015, At: 13:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Vicki Barnitt, Phyllis Jones, Daphne Thomas, (2015),"Including Learners with Severe Intellectual Disabilities: System Planning and Support for Greater Inclusive Practices", International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 5 pp. 63-87 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620140000005003 Robin Drogan, Darlene Perner, (2015),"Facilitating Systems of Support", International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 5 pp. 89-110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ S1479-363620140000005004
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
464943 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
*Related content and download information correct at
time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
FACILITATING SUPPORTS AND
SERVICES FOR LEARNERS WITH
LOW-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES
Jody Marie Bartz, Jennifer Kurth and
Matthew Wangeman
ABSTRACT
Facilitating inclusive supports and services for learners with low- incidence disabilities involves collaborative teaming, understanding the benefits and challenges involved in delivering inclusive supports, and appreciating the diverse and unique needs of this population. In this chap- ter, we provide families, educators, researchers, academics, related ser- vice personnel, and other professionals with examples of models of service and support delivery. Emphasis will be on school-age learners with low-incidence disabilities. Additionally, an insider perspective of the opportunities for, as well as benefits and barriers to, successful implemen- tation of supports and services for learners with low-incidence disabilities is presented. The chapter concludes with future directions for research.
Keywords: Inclusive education; systems of support; service delivery
Including Learners with Low-Incidence Disabilities International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 5, 111!136 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000005005
111
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
INTRODUCTION
Recent decades have witnessed a significant increase in the number of chil- dren with disabilities participating in general education settings (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). However, students with low- incidence disabilities are largely excluded from such progress (Kurth, Morningstar, & Kozleski, in press). The rise of inclusive educational place- ments in the United States has been occurring since the 1970s, when philo- sophical ideas ushered in the era of “normalization” (Wolfsenberger, 1972) and students with disabilities were placed in general education settings for the first time. However, this movement toward inclusion occurred well before any empirical evidence existed to support the movement (Eaves & Ho, 1997). Some 30 years later, inclusion is gaining research support, with findings ranging from improved cognitive and academic gains (Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012; Dore, Dion, Wagner, & Brunet, 2002; Fisher & Meyer, 2002; Hedeen & Ayres, 2002; McCleskey, Henry, & Hodges, 1998; Meyer, 2001) to increases in social interactions and peer acceptance (Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2004; Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002; Dore et al., 2002; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001). Additionally, empirical research has found that typical peers do not “suffer” academically or socially as a result of inclusion (Gandhi, 2007; Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson, & Kaplan, 2007). Rather, typical peers show academic, social, and behavioral benefits, as do students with disabilities (Heiman, 2001; Johnson & McDonnell, 2004). Finally, the parents of both children with and without disabilities consistently support inclusion (Frazeur-Cross, Traub, Hutter-Pishgahi, & Shelton, 2004; Hanson et al., 2001; Seery, Davis, & Johnson, 2000). Despite these positive trends and research findings, there has been a troubling “regression … or resignation toward, a self-contained setting as a viable placement for students with severe disabilities” (Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2008!2009, p. 176). Thus, there is a pressing need to describe and advocate for effective inclu- sive practices, framed around issues of educational equity, presumptions of competence, and the least dangerous assumption. The purpose of this chap- ter is to describe the various methods of delivering supports and services for students with low-incidence disabilities in inclusive educational settings. Students with low-incidence disabilities are those (a) served under the cate- gories of intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, vision impairment, hearing impairment, deaf-blindness, and autism; (b) who have extensive support needs; and (c) are the 1!2% of U.S. students who are eligible to
112 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
complete their state’s alternate assessment. The following questions guided the discussion in this chapter:
1. How do we provide inclusive supports and services for learners with low-incidence disabilities?
2. What types of support and service model delivery options are available to learners with low-incidence disabilities?
3. What are the benefits and challenges to providing effective and inclusive supports and services for learners with low-incidence disabilities?
After reading this chapter, the reader will
• understand key terms and laws related to facilitating supports and ser- vices for learners with low-incidence disabilities,
• differentiate between various service delivery models for learners with low-incidence disabilities,
• identify benefits and challenges of individualized supports and services for learners with significant support needs.
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION IMPACTING CONTEMPORARY SPECIAL EDUCATION
Students with low-incidence disabilities have been marginalized and segre- gated throughout much of human history. It was simply assumed that peo- ple with low-incidence disabilities are unable to learn or make meaningful contributions to society. These assumptions led to the widespread segrega- tion into institutions and family homes. Even the genetics of people with disabilities have been feared, resulting in forced sterilization and institutio- nalization (Smith & Wehmeyer, 2012). It was only in 1975 in the United States, with the passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142), that students with low-incidence disabilities were mandated to receive education services. Prior to this law, students with disabilities were typically discouraged or even prohibited from attending school. The passage of P.L. 94-142 coincided with a movement to deinstitutionalize adults with disabilities. Efforts were made to assist adults to move from large facilities into smaller, more family-like, group homes within commu- nities (Bigby, Kristiansen, Johnson, & Traustadottir, 2005).
Although federal law and the deinstitutionalization movement marked important steps in promoting quality and equitable lives for individuals
113Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
with disabilities, a long history of institutionalizing and segregating people with disabilities greatly impacts the delivery of special education services today. Following passage of the law, students with disabilities were re- segregated into public and private schools (Winzer, 2007), grouped together in special education classes for much, if not all, of the school day. This seg- regation of students on the basis of disability was founded on the same assumptions that guided institutionalization and segregation from the ear- liest days. Namely, that some students could not learn in the “regular” class, and so separating students with unique learning needs from this set- ting would be beneficial in (a) preventing the “deviant” student from inter- fering with the learning of “normal” students and (b) preventing an inordinate amount of teacher’s time being directed toward this “deviant” student (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). As Heller et al. (1982) further report, segregation was purported to benefit those students requiring spe- cial education: (a) instruction was provided in smaller class sizes, (b) stu- dents in segregated settings would be provided effective teaching at a level that is appropriate to the student, and (c) any assault to the self-esteem of students with disabilities would be prevented, as there would be no oppor- tunity to be compared to “normal” children in a “normal” class. Perhaps as a result of these assumptions and expectations, students with disabilities were educated in segregated settings and in a manner that focused on needs, rather than addressed potential.
While these claims of the benefits of segregation may seem outdated, and despite voluminous evidence supporting the benefits of inclusive education, these assumptions about the benefits of segregating students with disabilities persist to this day. Educators and parents regularly believe that segregated self-contained classrooms deliver educational experiences that are in some way unique or beneficial to students with disabilities, including supporting the claims outlined by Heller and colleagues. These claims, however, have failed to be supported by research evidence. For example, Causton- Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsait, and Cosier (2011) completed a series of obser- vations in six self-contained special education classrooms over the span of seven years, and found that these classrooms failed to deliver on their pro- mises of community, distraction-free environments, specialized curriculum and instruction, and behavioral supports. As these authors concluded, “we found it difficult to argue for fixing or improving these self-contained set- tings because everything we observed that could have been considered edu- cational could have been transported to inclusive settings without compromising the education these students were receiving” (p. 73). Simply, the instruction delivered in these segregated settings was not different from,
114 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
or superior to, instruction in the general education setting. However, the persistence of segregated education within and across schools today, parti- cularly for students with low-incidence disabilities, illustrates how these assumptions continue to drive practice (Smith & Kozleski, 2005).
LEGISLATION REGARDING SUPPORTS AND SERVICES
Inclusive education is firmly grounded in federal legal mandates, notably the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), the most recent reauthorization of P.L. 94-142. IDEA mandates that, to the maximum extent possible, children with disabilities should be edu- cated with their typical peers and that removal of children with disabilities from the general education environment occurs only in exceptional cases. Furthermore, IDEA shifts the focus from mere physical access to general education settings, emphasizing instead access to the core general education curriculum (Clark, Cushing, & Kennedy, 2004; Jitendra, Edwards, Choutka, & Treadway, 2002). Of significance in the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 is its close alignment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act, of 2002 (Moores, 2005; Smith, 2005; Turnbull, 2005). Both laws emphasize aca- demic accountability and results, along with research-based educational practices (Clark et al., 2004).
The IDEA has been further interpreted in case law, with findings strongly supporting that special education services be delivered in inclusive settings, as seen in Table 1. Importantly, these findings not only state that inclusive education is the intent of the law, but that inclusion is about more than just physical placement or geography. Instead, inclusive education entails the provision of appropriate supports and services so students can be meaningfully involved and make progress in, the general education cur- riculum and activities.
SUPPORTS AND SERVICES
With growing support for inclusive education, schools, families, policy makers, and researchers have identified a number of intervention methods
115Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
to provide access to general education settings and curriculum for stu- dents with disabilities. While IDEA (2004) does not define direct and indirect support, it does note that the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) must include a statement of the special education and related services “to be provided to the child or on behalf of the child” 300.320(a)(4)(i). These supports and services are provided to assist a stu- dent in meeting his or her IEP goals and to make progress in the general education curriculum.
Table 1. Summary of Legal Cases in Support of Inclusive Education.
Name of Case Description of Case
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Education must be available to all, on equal terms. Separate is inherently unequal.
PARC v. Pennsylvania (1972) The state provided students without disabilities a free education, and thus the state could not deny students with disabilities this same right.
Board of Education v. Rowley (1982)
Students with disabilities must be provided with an education, including supports and services, that confer a basic educational benefit.
Roncker V. Walter (1983) A district cannot simply claim that a self-contained program is superior. If the self-contained setting is somehow superior, the court will determine if those supports and services that make the placement superior could be reasonably provided in an inclusive setting (the principle of portability).
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989)
Here, the court did not follow the Roncker test, but developed its own. The court must (1) examine whether, with the use of supplementary aids and services, the child can be included in the classroom and (2) if the child cannot be included, if the child was mainstreamed to the maximum extent possible.
Sacramento Unified School District v. Rachel H. (1992)
A four-part test for determining if a student can be included in general education: (1) the educational benefits of the general education classroom; (2) the nonacademic benefits of interaction between students with and without disabilities; (3) the impact of the student with disabilities on the teacher and other students in the classroom; and (4) the cost of supplementary aids and services required for inclusion.
Rafael Oberti v. Clementon School District (1993)
Here, the court found that the school had failed to provide the student with the supports, resources, and appropriate training to be placed in an inclusive setting. The judge found that, “inclusion is a right, not a special privilege for a select few.”
116 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Direct Supports and Services
Direct supports and services are provided to the child by a special educa- tion teacher or a related services provider (see Fig. 1). They may be pro- vided individually or in small group settings. For example, a speech- language pathologist may work individually with a student to focus on articulation. Similarly, an occupational therapist may work directly on ball handling skills with a small group of students.
Indirect Supports and Services
Indirect supports and services are not provided directly to the child, but are provided to those people who work directly with the child (see Fig. 2). Indirect services may include consultation, collaboration, curricular modifi- cations, and progress monitoring, among others. For example, a behaviorist may observe a student in a classroom and provide specific recommendations for the teacher to implement. Likewise, a special education teacher may pro- vide detailed instructions for a paraeducator to implement when working directly with a student.
Supports ServicesProfessional IEP progressStudent
Fig. 1. Direct Supports and Services.
Consultation Collaboration Observation
Professional Supports Services
Professional IEP progressStudent
Fig. 2. Indirect Supports and Services.
117Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
A SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
The delivery of supports and services for individuals who experience dis- ability, particularly low-incidence disabilities, are always guided by a set of assumptions and values. Those who subscribe to a medical model of dis- ability aim to provide supports and services that “fix” or “cure” disability. In this view, disability resides entirely within an individual. People with dis- abilities will be able to participate fully in society when they are no longer disabled. A social model takes a different view, namely, that people may experience disability when physical, attitudinal, and institutional barriers prevent a person from participating in society. When a person’s personal capabilities closely approximate the demands of the environment, that per- son experiences little disability. However, when a person’s present personal capacity is more different from the demands of the environment, that per- son experiences more disability. As an example, a wheelchair user who has ready access to ramps and elevators experiences little disability. However, when this person is faced with a staircase and no alternatives, that indivi- dual becomes disabled. When we consider designing and implementing sup- ports and services throughout this chapter, we take a social model of disability perspective. We assume that all people are competent and capable of learning and succeeding, but that more and different supports must be provided for some individuals as compared to others to achieve this success (Thompson et al., 2009). Our view of inclusive education is that all students belong and can learn in general education, with some needing more and different supports to ensure meaningful access and participation in general education than others.
Further guiding principles in the delivery of supports and services that facilitate inclusive practices are the principle of equity, the presumption of competence, and the least dangerous assumption. The principle of equity asserts that all students should receive what they need, and what individual students need to learn will vary (Lavoie & Lieberman, 1986). Equity demands of us that we make specific accommodations to enable students to learn together. The presumption of competence and least dangerous assumption complement one another and the principle of equity. The pre- sumption of competence demands of us to see all students as capable of learning and contributing; failure to do so based on a student’s learning or physical characteristics risks making a dangerous assumption by underesti- mating a student and failing to provide high standards and expectations of achievement.
118 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
MODELS OF SUPPORT AND SERVICE DELIVERY
When designing inclusive supports and services, educators rely on the prin- ciple of equity, presumption of competence, and least dangerous assump- tion. Together, these inform various models of support and service delivery. These models of support and service are systems of support provided to facilitate student involvement and participation in the full range of general education curriculum and activities (including extracurricular). Each stu- dent will necessarily require a different system of support. Through provi- sion of these supports, inclusive education and communities are fostered; we replace the requirement that students conform to general education expectations, and instead design supports that make general education acc- essible and meaningful. These delivery models of inclusive education include (a) paraeducator supports, (b) consultation and/or collaboration supports from special education teachers, (c) co-teaching of general and special edu- cation teachers, (d) peer supports, and (e) inclusive-related services. In prac- tice, these delivery models may overlap. For example, a fully included student may have the support of a paraeducator and her general and special education teachers may collaborate regularly. For purposes of highlighting each type of delivery model, each model is described individually, and strengths and weaknesses of each model are presented in Table 2.
Paraeducator Model
Paraeducators, also called paraprofessionals, teacher assistants, or instruc- tional assistants are school employees who work in an instructional capacity alongside with, and under the supervision of, certified teachers (French, 1999). The use of paraeducators as a primary support for students with dis- abilities in inclusive settings is rising every year (French & Chopra, 1999). In fact, paraeducators are the dominant approach used by schools to support students’ involvement in general education classrooms (Carter, Cushing, Clark, & Kennedy, 2005; Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012). Assigning para- educators to work with students with disabilities in general education class- rooms allows for individualized instruction and targeting individual student needs, as the paraeducator provides small group or one-to-one instruction for the student with disabilities in the general education context.
However, the use of paraeducators to support students in classrooms is not unanimously supported. In fact, Giangreco and Broer assert that the
119Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Table 2. Summary of Models of Inclusive Education Supports and Services Delivery.
Model Advantages Disadvantages
Paraeducator • Individualized instruction • Students more likely to be engaged
• Small group: • Increase socialization • Increase generalization • Increase communication partners
• Dependency (1-to-1) • Social interference (1-to-1) • Lack of teacher involvement • Decrease socialization (1-to-1) • Decrease communication partners (1-to-1)
• Decreased generalization (1-to-1)
Co-teaching • Pooled expertise to benefit student
• Decreased student-teacher ratio
• Teachers gain professional support
• Increased instructional opportunities
• Increased opportunity for differentiated instruction
• Increased generalization • Increase communication
• Lack of planning time • Lack of individualization • Lack of shared content knowledge • Lack of clear roles • Lack of consistent training
Consultation/ itinerant special education teacher
• Modified curriculum available
• Full membership in GE • Collaboration between teachers
• Pooled expertise to benefit student
• Teacher values many ways of student knowledge/learning
• Unclear as to how accommodations are implemented
• Large SE teacher caseload • Teachers unprepared to be consultants
• In practice little individualization • GE teacher overwhelmed
Peer tutors • High engagement • Peers successful in tutoring • Increased social interactions • Decreased problem behaviors • Increased academic achievement
• Teachers and peers approve of it
• Increased communication • Improved behavior (peer modeling)
• Increased generalization
• Questions of oversight • Appropriate feedback and instruction
• Availability of peers • Parent and student support unclear
120 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
“extensive reliance on paraeducators, though in widespread use, lacks an educationally defensible foundation from a conceptual, theoretical, or data-based perspective” (2005, p. 25). Furthermore, Giangreco and Broer (2005) notes the risk inherent in a model of education in which by having a disability, a student receives most of their instruction from a paraeducator with uncertain and unguaranteed skills, while students without disabilities receive most of their instruction from highly qualified teachers.
Criticisms of reliance on paraeducators are not limited to issues of fair- ness. Many drawbacks are associated with the use of paraeducators to implement instruction. For example, use of paraeducators for one-to-one instruction nurtures student dependence, inhibits independence and auton- omy, and limits the opportunity to learn vicariously through peers and develop social skills (Giangreco et al., 2012). Additionally, paraeducators may evoke stigmatization toward the student, interfere with peer interac- tions, and reduce teacher involvement by becoming the primary instructors for students with disabilities (Giangreco & Broer, 2005). In addition, parae- ducators can also inadvertently contribute to a student’s loss of personal control, loss of gender identity, and interfere with the instruction of other students by engaging in different activities and talking during class activ- ities (Giangreco, Edelman, & MacFarland, 1997). Students themselves report that the constant presence of a paraeducator can be frustrating in that these support personnel interfere with their independence, interactions with teachers, and friendships (Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005). In addi- tion, when a paraeducator is present, teachers tend to assume that the para- educator is primarily responsible and thus “disown” the student as their responsibility (Cook, 2004). Teachers also tend to be less engaged with
Table 2. (Continued )
Model Advantages Disadvantages
Inclusive-related services
• Reduces classroom disruption
• Maximizes instructional time • Facilitates generalization • Creates more opportunities throughout a day to practice needed skills
• Reduces stigmatization • Decreases the number of transitions students must make
• Need to co-plan between teachers and related services providers to develop meaningful opportunities
• Many related services providers may be unprepared to work in inclusive settings
• Opportunities for “watering down” and inappropriate roles
121Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
students when paraeducators are present, as demonstrated by having few instructional interactions with students and an absence of planning lessons or activities for students (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2001). Lastly, many teachers report feeling unprepared to supervise paraeducators (Chopra, Sandoval-Lucero, & French, 2011).
Co-Teaching/Collaborative Team Model
A second delivery model of inclusive education, collaborative or co- teaching, is growing in frequency across the nation (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004). Co-teaching or collaborative teach- ing can take several forms, including (a) one teacher teaching with the other assisting; (b) station teaching whereby teachers teach groups of students at the same time, (c) team teaching, (d) parallel teaching, and (e) alternative teaching when teachers take turns teaching the whole class (Murawski, 2012). Regardless of form, both general and special education teachers share an equal responsibility for lesson planning, lesson implementation, and assessment (Strogilos & Tragoulia, 2013) and students with disabilities are full-time, full members of classrooms. As such, this model breaks down the traditional barrier between special and general education and capitalizes on the skills and abilities of both teachers (Noonan, McCormick, & Heck, 2003). When working within this model, teachers share and serve students based on needs rather than labels (Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004). For example, the general education teacher instructs while the special education teacher circulates and assists students in need of extra help (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). Typically the general education teacher is valued as the content expert, whereas the special education teacher is valued as the expert in accommodations and dif- ferentiation in this model (Austin, 2001). While the divide between general and special education is minimized, this model does allow the special educa- tion teacher to instruct primarily struggling students or students with special needs, while the general education teacher can focus on the larger group (Burstein et al., 2004; Heiman, 2001; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001).
The philosophical rationale of the co-teaching model is increasingly sup- ported in the literature (Austin, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001; Murawski & Swanson, 2001). For example, co-teaching provides all students with a wider range of instructional opportunities, reduces student-teacher ratios, and allows teachers to provide professional support to each other (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Additionally, teachers find co-teaching
122 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
valuable and feel benefited by their collaboration with others and the feed- back they receive from their partner teacher (Austin, 2001; Villa et al., 2004).
While co-teaching has been gaining popularity among teachers, the ben- efits to students with disabilities have been questioned when implemented under typical conditions. For example, in co-taught classrooms students received individual instruction 2.2% of the time, whereas in single teacher classrooms students received individual attention 1% of the time (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). However, the co-teachers in this study worked under “realistic” conditions; that is, they did not share common planning time and thus did not collaborate frequently. Thus, while co-teachers value joint planning, frequently this time is not allocated on a consistent basis (Gürgür & Uzuner, 2010).
Consultation/Itinerant Special Education Teacher Model
A third inclusive delivery model is the consultation method. In this model the special education teacher acts as a consultant to the general education teacher in terms of curriculum adaptation, skills deficit remediation, and assessment modification (Austin, 2001). Again, the student with disabilities is a full-time, fully included member of the classroom. The consulta- tion delivery method is generally associated with other methods (e.g., paraeducator support in class), with an itinerant special education teacher providing consultation to teachers and drop-in support of students (Vlachou & Zoniou-Sideri, 2010). Benefits of consultation include the development of a collaborative relationship among teachers, focusing on an equal interchange between colleagues, shared responsibilities, and a free- dom to accept or reject ideas (Eisenman, Pleet, Wandry, & McGinley, 2011). Support for this model stems from the observation that general edu- cation teachers typically do not have the same expertise to address the unique needs of children with disabilities as do special education teachers; collaboration and consultation between the two experts is thus essential (Collins, Branson, Hall, & Rankin, 2001).
Coaching Model
Another form of the consultation model is the coaching model, whereby special and general education teachers take turns coaching one another in their areas of curricular and pedagogical expertise (Austin, 2001). Noell and Witt (1999) note that reviews of the consultation literature support the
123Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
assumption that consultation can be an effective method of delivering ser- vices to students in that teachers may consult with one another, devise stra- tegies and ideas, and implement them. In such a model, these authors report that teachers would not be limited to a particular classroom all day but could affect change for a number of students, both for students with disabilities and those at risk, across an entire school.
Regardless of whether the focus is on coaching or collaborating, in this special education delivery model the general education teacher becomes the primary teacher for the student with disabilities, while special education teachers act as support staff, providing ideas and adaptations for use in general education classes and content areas (Dymond & Russell, 2004). As such, the primary responsibility of instruction and educational outcomes for the student with disabilities is placed on the general education teacher (Cook, 2001). Collaboration between general education and special educa- tion teachers on learning styles, teaching, and assessment is associated with an increase in teacher ability to recognize and accept diverse learning styles (Foster & Cue, 2009). Furthermore, consultation between general and spe- cial education teachers enables schools and teachers to focus on providing an appropriate curriculum for all students (Carrington & Elkins, 2002).
Despite the documented positive effects of consultation by some studies, overall, outcome data in support of this method are limited. Currently, very little data exist to describe what consultative or collaborative practices lead to the implementation of the classroom interventions. In addition, itin- erant special education teachers providing consultation services poses further challenges. The possibility of large caseloads in such a model pre- sents the risk that teachers provide little instruction and little individualiza- tion (Russ, Chiang, Rylance, & Bongers, 2001). Furthermore, itinerant consulting teachers are generally unprepared in their own teacher training for the consultation model. In a study of itinerant teachers, Dinnebeil, McInerney, Roth, and Ramaswamy (2001) found that itinerant teachers are most comfortable with and spend most of their time in child-directed rather than adult-directed (consultation) activities, and question whether this is an effective service, given the limited time itinerant teachers spend with individual children and adults.
Peer-Tutoring Model
The peer-tutoring model involves utilizing one or more peers to provide academic and social support to classmates with a disability (Fennick &
124 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Royle, 2003). The successes of peer-tutoring have been well documented in the literature (Banda, Hart, & Liu-Gitz, 2010; Carter et al., 2005; Carter & Hughes, 2005; Carter & Kennedy, 2006; Carter, Sisco, Melekoglu, & Kurkowski, 2007). Peers have successfully been taught to complete tasks such as adapting curriculum, providing instruction, implementing behavior plans, providing feedback, and promoting communication (Carter et al., 2005). Furthermore, peers can be taught to effectively do drill and practice from study guides, ask content questions and summarize information, do oral readings of English novels and summarize these for their peer tutee (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001). In addition, peers have been successfully taught to implement accommodations, ranging from rewording, paraphras- ing questions, breaking assignments into smaller tasks, facilitating partial participation in class activities, and modifying course materials (Carter et al., 2005). The use of peer support in classrooms has been associated with higher levels of engagement for students both with and without dis- abilities, increases in social interactions, decreases in problem behavior, and improved academic performance (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana, 2003). Furthermore, an arrangement of two peer tutors to work with one student with disabilities increased the social interaction and con- tact with general education curriculum more than having only one peer tutor, although no peer support configuration has been found to have a detrimental impact on participation in general education (Carter et al., 2005). In sum, cooperative learning and the use of peer tutors have been found to enhance academic achievement and social inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes (O’Reilly, Lancioni, Gardiner, Tiernan, & Lacy, 2002). Both teachers and peers have positive attitudes about peer-tutoring (Mastropieri et al., 2003).
Inclusive-Related Services
Related services are defined as those services that are required to assist a child with disabilities in benefitting from special education services. Related services include services such as speech and language therapy, interpreting, orientation and mobility, and so on (IDEA 300.34(a)). Providing related services in inclusive settings has been advocated since the passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975 (Giangreco, 1986). The reasons for this are multiple, including the ramifications of the Rowley (1982) case, as well as the need to support students with disabilities in general education settings. “Simply stated … related services are too important for students, families, and
125Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
school personnel to be provided in ways that interfere with the education of students with disabilities” (Giangreco, Prelock, Reid, Dennis, & Edleman, 2000, p. 362). When students must leave their classroom and activities to access related services, learning is certainly interfered with, and the opportu- nities for stigmatization increase. Thus, the provision of related services inside general education classrooms, embedded within natural routines, is preferred.
There are many ways that inclusive-related services can be delivered, including teaming and role release (Giangreco et al., 2000; Giangreco, York, & Rainforth, 1989; York, Giangreco, Vandercook, & Macdonald, 1992). Teaming, in which providers and educators learn new skills to sup- port one another and the student, is useful in providing a holistic approach to delivering related services. Role release, a process in which a therapist trains a core group of team members to implement interventions on a daily basis, is also useful. It is important that the roles of related services provi- ders and classroom teachers are clearly articulated (Giangreco et al., 2000), so that services are not “watered down” when educators or related services providers take on inappropriate roles (Ehren, 2000).
The provision of inclusive-related services further reduces the number of transitions a student must make between activities and settings. As transi- tioning from one activity or environment to another can be challenging for some students (Sterling-Turner & Jordan, 2007), inclusive-related services can be crucial to facilitating student success. Perhaps for these reasons, classroom teachers indicate a preference for inclusive-related services. For example, teachers report that inclusive-related services provide more oppor- tunities for students’ IEP goals to be addressed throughout the day, and that all students in the classroom receive help as needed (Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2008). Therapists report enjoying working with other members of the IEP team but need support to make collaboration effective (Rainforth & York-Barr, 1997).
VIGNETTE: INSIDE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOCIAL ASPECTS OF PROVIDING INCLUSIVE SUPPORTS AND
SERVICES ! MATTHEW WANGEMAN
“In the past ten years, there has been a push for more inclusive educational opportunities for all students with disabilities, even for those with low- incidence disabilities. This trend in education has been very much
126 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
welcomed by the disability community as a whole and many of the gains in education have been initiated by disability advocates around the world. While the concept of inclusion is now the driving force behind the integra- tion of children with disabilities within our schools, often the social aspects of inclusion are too often glossed over or not even addressed by the IEP team members. As a person with support needs, what I mean by the social aspects of inclusion are the social activities surrounding the act of going to school. Examples are going to the prom, involvement in student clubs and government, going to football games, playing with other children at recess, and many more. For many of us, these social activities defined our school experience more than learning to read or adding two numbers together. These school experiences often marked our entrance into becoming more independent and were pivotal in teaching us how to interact socially. More importantly, these school experiences were the foundation of making us into the adults we are today and provided us the connection to the world around us.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that academics are not important and that we should ignore the teaching aspects of inclusion. However if we deny children the rich experience that these school activities have to offer we unfortunately contribute to the further isolation and segregation of chil- dren with disabilities. As a person with a significant disability who grew up in a time when people with disabilities were not included in public schools I applaud the push for inclusion and I have advocated strongly for the inclu- sion of every student with a disability in our schools. However, I have talked to too many students and parents of students who say that they are not included in the social part of school. Sometime ago I was asked by this staff person at a school in the Phoenix area to talk to a student with a dis- ability who was very depressed and our conversation was around how they felt very isolated and had no friends. This student said he thought about suicide often because he didn’t see the point of living if he was not included in the social aspects of school or life. Unfortunately I don’t know what happened to this student but his experience in school is not uncommon and it proves that if we only focused on academics we can do much harm.
Studies have shown that inclusion is better for students’ mental health ! they are less depressed and have higher self-esteem than students in self- contained classrooms (Wiener & Tardif, 2004). This of course makes logical sense and inclusion is better than self-contained classrooms for a myriad of reasons however we just should not assume that inclusion will fix every- thing. We have to work at ensuring that inclusion is done in a holistic man- ner with both academic and social aspects being addressed equally.
127Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Creating an environment that encourages inclusion to occur naturally within the classroom is paramount. Here are a few strategies: (a) natural supports, (b) paraprofessionals who are not tied to the child with the dis- ability and know how to facilitate social interactions among all students, (c) creating spaces where students teach each other, and (d) figuring out students’ strengths and focusing on their abilities instead of their disabilities.
Natural Supports
An example of natural supports would be if a child with a disability needed help reading why not ask the other students to assist the child. In doing this, an environment exists where children learn to naturally assist each other when they need help. This also can lead to outside the classroom where children see it is not a big deal to assist others and they learn that everyone needs help with something.
Paraeducators
Paraeducators need to not be tied to the student with a disability because it inhibits social interaction with the other students. They are there to assist the child with a disability but they should allow them to be independent as much as possible in addition they need to facilitate social interaction between every student. A good paraprofessional should be seen by the students as just a classroom aid for everyone and not just an aid for that student.
Peer-Tutoring
Creating spaces where students teach each other is also important because similar to natural supports it teaches everyone that they have strengths and weaknesses but if everyone works together things can get accomplished. Furthermore it can show the strengths of the student with a disability and prove that they are a valuable person.
Presuming Competence
Lastly, we must focus on the abilities rather than disabilities of the stu- dents. For example if the student with a disability is a strong reader but
128 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
math is difficult we should have them lead a reading group and perhaps have other students help them with math. This will show that everyone has different talents and the world is made up of very diverse people and that is a good thing.
If we can create a school environments where inclusion occurs naturally, this will lead to a more holistic form of inclusion where students are not only included in the academics part of school but they are also included in the social part of school. Unfortunately, we cannot mandate the inclusion of students with disabilities in the social aspects of going to school. However, if everyone involved is aware of both the potential issues as well as the benefits surrounding inclusion then we can work together to ensure that students with low-incidence disabilities have an enriching school experience ! both academically and socially.”
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Limited studies exist that examine the effectiveness of inclusive-related ser- vices for students with low-incidence disabilities. However, Giangreco (1986) found that when therapy is provided within the natural setting of a student’s classroom, the student demonstrates an increase in skill develop- ment when compared to direct therapy services that are provided in a sepa- rate room. Importantly, inclusive-related services result in increased instructional time and less disruption (Rainforth & York-Barr, 1997). Future research focused on examining inclusive supports and services is warranted.
KEY TERMS
Social model of disability ! The social model of disability views people who experience disability as an oppressed group. The social model asserts that disability does not reside in an individual but in environmental contexts that exclude and oppress people (Shakespeare, 2006).
Medical model of disability ! The medical model of disability claims that disability rests squarely in an individual, and invests effort in fixing and curing disability, rather than in remediating social barriers, whether they are attitudinal, physical, or institutional.
129Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Educational equity ! “Do we treat all students the same, or do we make special accommodations for certain groups? Do we educate all groups of students considered different in the same program, or do we create separate programs for some of them?” (Artiles & Bal, 2008, p. 5). Diversity pro- motes equity, while benefitting all students. “Diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their color” (Maya Angelou).
Inclusion or inclusive education ! Inclusion is defined as both placement and provision of all needed supports. Inclusion means that a student is full mem- ber of a general education setting, not a visitor for certain activities. Inclusion also means that the student is provided the range of supports and services she needs to address her specific needs in that setting. Inclusion, then, is about membership and meaningful access that allows students to make progress in areas that are important for all students.
Least dangerous assumption ! “Teacher expectations about students’ ability to learn ! communicated in both explicit and subtle ways ! can be more influential on learning outcomes than the students’ inherent abilities or the teachers’ instructional methods” (Jorgensen, McSheehan, & Sonnenmeier, 2007, p. 249). These self-fulfilling prophecies can be pro- foundly detrimental for students with disabilities, who are viewed as a label (e.g., “severe disabilities”), and thus denied opportunities that other similarly aged students are learning. Rather than viewing students through this limiting lens of disability, it is critical to make the least dangerous assumptions, and to presume competence by viewing all students as com- petent learners and contributors to their classrooms, schools, homes, and communities.
Disability ! The World Health Organization defines “disability” as a dis- crepancy of fit between a person’s context (e.g., curriculum, physical space) and a person’s present capabilities. (http://www.who.int/topics/ disabilities/en/). This view, then, suggests that the person is not disabled, but that the environment is disabling.
Low-incidence disabilities ! Students with low-incidence disabilities are served under the categories of intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, vision impairment, hearing impairment, deaf-blindness, and autism, who have significant cognitive impairment; these are also the students 1!2% of U.S. students who are eligible to complete their state’s alternate assessment (Kurth et al., in press).
130 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Presuming competence ! “Difficulties with demonstrating ability are not be taken as evidence of intellectual incompetence …[Rather,] as a matter of basic sensitivity and good educational practice, educators must presume that the person is intelligent” (Biklen, 1999, p. 50).
Related services ! According to IDEA, related services means transporta- tion and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special educa- tion, and includes speech-language pathology and audiology services, inter- preting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early identification and assess- ment of disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services for diag- nostic or evaluation purposes. Related services also include school health services and school nurse services, social work services in schools, and par- ent counseling and training (IDEA, 2004, §300.34).
REFERENCES
Artiles, A., & Bal, A. (2008). The next generation of disproportionality research: Toward a comparative model in the study of equity in ability differences. Journal of Special Education, 42, 4!14.
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial & Special Education. Special Curriculum Access, 22(4), 245!255.
Banda, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Liu-Gitz, L. (2010). Impact of training peers and children with autism on social skills during center time activities in inclusive classrooms. Research in Autism Spectrum Disoders, 4(4), 619!625.
Bigby, C. M., Kristiansen, K., Johnson, K., & Traustadottir, R. (2005). Deinstitutionalization and people with intellectual disabilities: In and out of institutions. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Biklen, D. P. (1999). The metaphor of mental retardation: Rethinking ability and disability. In H. Bersani, Jr. (Ed.), Responding to the challenge: Current trends and international issues in developmental disabilities. Essays in honor of Gunnar Dybwad. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Broer, S. M., Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. F. (2005). Perspectives of students with intellec- tual disabilities about their experiences with paraprofessional supports. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 415!430.
Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004). Moving toward
inclusive practices. Remedial & Special Education, 25(2), 104!116. Carrington, S., & Elkins, J. (2002). Bridging the gap between inclusive policy and inclusive
culture in secondary schools. Support for Learning, 17(2), 51!57.
131Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Carter, E., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Effect of peer support interventions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(1), 15!25.
Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2005). Increasing social interaction among adolescents with intel- lectual disabilities and their general education peers: Effective interventions. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(4), 179!193.
Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 284!292.
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Melekoglu, M. A., & Kurkowski, C. (2007). Peer supports as an alternative to individually assigned paraprofessionals in inclusive high school classrooms. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(4), 213!227.
Causton-Theoharis, J. N., & Malmgren, K. W. (2004). Increasing interactions between stu- dents with severe disabilities and their peers via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71, 431!444.
Causton-Theoharis, J. N., Theoharis, G. T., Orsait, F., & Cosier, M. (2011). Does self- contained special educatino deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 61!78.
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including students with dis- abilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 423!435.
Chopra, R. V., Sandoval-Lucero, E., & French, N. K. (2011). Effective supervision of parae- ducators: Multiple benefits and outcomes. National Teacher Education Journal, 4(2), 15!26.
Clark, N. M., Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. (2004). An intensive onsite technical assis- tance model to promote inclusive educational practices for students with disabilities in middle school and high school. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(4), 253!262.
Collins, B. C., Branson, T. A., Hall, M., & Rankin, S. W. (2001). Teaching secondary students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive academic classroom setting. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 13(1), 41!59.
Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203–213.
Cook, B. G. (2004). Inclusive teachers’ attitudes toward their students with disabilities: A repli- cation and extension. Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 307–320.
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education. 874 F.2d 1036 (1989). Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic
achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579!587.
Dinnebeil, L., McInerney, W., Roth, J., & Ramaswamy, V. (2001). Itinerant early childhood special education services: Service delivery in one state. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(1), 35!44.
Dore, R., Dion, A., Wagner, S., & Brunet, J. (2002). High school inclusion of adolescents with mental retardation: A multiple case study. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 37(3), 253!261.
132 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, D. (2008). Inclusive education: What makes it a good education for students with moderate to severe disabiltiies? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 16!30.
Dymond, S. K., & Russell, D. L. (2004). Impact of grade and disability on the instructional context of inclusive classrooms. Education & Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(2), 127!140.
Eaves, L., & Ho, H. (1997). School placement and academic achievement in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 9(4), 277!291.
Ehren, B. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing responsibility for student suc- cess: Keys to in-classroom speech-language services. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 219!229.
Eisenman, L. T., Pleet, A. M., Wandry, D., & McGinley, V. (2011). Voices of special educa- tion teachers in an inclusive high school: Redefining responsibliities. Remedial & Special Education, 32(2), 91!104.
Fennick, E., & Royle, J. (2003). Community inclusion for children and youth with developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 20!27.
Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(3), 165!174.
Foster, S., & Cue, K. (2009). Roles and responsibilities of itinerant specialist teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(5), 435!439. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0068
Frazeur-Cross, A., Traub, E., Hutter-Pishgahi, L., & Shelton, G. (2004). Elements of success- ful inclusion for children with significant disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(3), 169!184.
French, N. (1999). Paraeducators: Who are they and what do they do? Teaching Exceptional Children, September, 65!69.
French, N., & Chopra, R. (1999). Parent perspectives on the roles of paraprofessionals. Journal of the Association of People with Severe Disabilities, 24(4), 259!272.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9!27. doi:10.1080/10474410903535380
Gandhi, A. (2007). Context matters: Exploring relations between inclusion and reading achievement of students without disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54(1), 91!112.
Giangreco, M. (1986). Effects of integrated therapy: A pilot study. JASH, 11(3), 205!208. Giangreco, M., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclu-
sive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10!26.
Giangreco, M., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C. (2012). Constructively responding to requests for paraprofessionals: We keep asking the wrong questions. Remedial and Special Education, 33(6), 362!373.
Giangreco, M., Prelock, P., Reid, R., Dennis, R., & Edleman, S. (Eds.). (2000). Roles of related services personnel in inclusive schools (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
133Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Giangreco, M., York, J., & Rainforth, B. (1989). Providing related services to learners with severe handicaps in educational settings: Pursuing the least restrictive option. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 1(2), 55!63.
Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabiliteis: Differences based on paraprofessional service delivery models. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 75!86.
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., & MacFarland, S. (1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 7!18.
Gürgür, H., & Uzuner, Y. (2010). A phenomenological analysis of the views on co-teaching applications in the inclusion classroom. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 10(1), 311!331.
Hanson, M., Horn, E., Sandall, S., Beckman, P., Morgan, M., Marquart, J., … Chou, I. (2001). After preschool inclusion: Children’s educational pathways over the early school years. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 65!83.
Hedeen, D. L., & Ayres, B. J. (2002). “You Want Me to Teach Him to Read?” Fulfilling the intent of IDEA. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13(3), 180!189.
Heiman, T. (2001). Inclusive schooling ! Middle school teachers’ perceptions. School Psychology International, 22(4), 451!462.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special educa- tion: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley. 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. H.R. 1350, Pub. L. No. P.L.
108-446 (2004). Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008!2009). The dynamic relationship
between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33!4(4!1), 175!195.
Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Choutka, C. M., & Treadway, P. S. (2002). A collaborative approach to planning in the content areas for students with learning disabilities: Accessing the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4), 252!267.
Johnson, J. W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An exploratory study of the implementation of embedded instruction by general educators with students with developmental disabil- ities. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1), 46!63.
Jorgensen, C. M., McSheehan, M., & Sonnenmeier, R. M. (2007). Presumed competence reflected in the educational programs of students with IDD before and after the beyond access professional development intervention. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 32, 248!262.
Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365!382.
Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Kozleski, E. (in press). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities.
Lavoie, R. D., & Lieberman, L. M. (1986). Toward developing a philosophy of education: A re-examination of competition, fairness and the work ethic. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(1), 62!63.
134 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 79!85.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 265!274.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(1), 52!65.
McLeskey, J., Henry, D., & Hodges, D. (1998). Inclusion: Where is it happening? Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 4–10.
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward edu- cating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 46(3), 131!140.
Meyer, L. H. (2001). The impact on inclusion on children’s lives: Multiple outcomes, and friendship in particular. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 48, 9!31.
Moores, D. F. (2005). The no child left behind and the individuals with disabilities education acts: The uneven impact of partially funded federal mandates on education of deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(2), 75!80.
Murawski, W. W. (2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. Teaching Exceptional Children, 64(4), 8!15.
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: What are the data? Remedial & Special Education, 22, 258!267.
Noell, G., & Witt, J. (1999). When does consultation lead to intervention implementation? Critical issues for research and practice. Journal of Special Education, 33, 29!35.
Noonan, M. J., McCormick, L., & Heck, R. H. (2003). The co-teacher relationship scale: Applications for professional development. Education & Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(1), 113!120.
O’Reilly, Lancioni, G., Gardiner, M., Tiernan, R., & Lacy, C. (2002). Using a problem-solving approach to teach classroom skills to a student with moderate intellectual disabilities within regular classroom settings. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 49(1), 95!104.
PARC v. Pennsylvania. 334 F. Supp. 279 (1972). Rafael Oberti v. Clemonton School District. 995 F.2d 1204 (1993). Rainforth, B., & York-Barr, J. (1997). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities:
Integrating therapy and educational services (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Roncker v. Walter. 700 F.2d 1058 (1983). Russ, S., Chiang, B., Rylance, B., & Bongers, J. (2001). Caseload in special education: An
integration of research findings. Exceptional Children, 67(2), 161!172. Sacramento Unified School District v. Rachel H. C 786 F. Supp. 874 (1992). Seery, M., Davis, P., & Johnson, L. (2000). Seeing eye-to-eye: Are parents and professionals in
agreement about the benefits of preschool inclusion? Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 268!278.
Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 197!204). London: Routledge.
135Facilitating Supports and Services
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
Smith, A., & Kozleski, E. (2005). Witnessing brown: Pursuit of an equity agenda in American education. Remedial & Special Education, 26, 270!280.
Smith, J. D., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2012). Good blood, bad blood: Science and nature and the myth of the Kalikaks. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Smith, T. C. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 314!319.
Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Jordan, S. S. (2007). Interventions addressing transition difficulties for individuals with autism. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 681!690.
Strogilos, V., & Tragoulia, E. (2013). Inclusive and collaborative practices in co-taught class- rooms: Roles and responsibilities for teachers and parents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 81!91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.001
Thompson, J. R., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Schalock, R. L., Shogren, K., Snell, M., … Yeager, M. H. (2009). Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47(2), 135!146. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.135
Turnbull, H. R. (2005). Individuals with disabilities education act reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 320!326.
Villa, R., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. (2004). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facili- tating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Vlachou, A., & Zoniou-Sideri, A. (2010). Inclusive education and collaborative practices between general and special education teachers. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 180!204.
Weiner, J., & Tardif, C. (2004). Social and emotional functioning of children with learning dis- abilities: Does special education placement make a difference? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 20–32.
Winzer, M. A. (2007). Confronting difference: An excursion through the history of special edu- cation. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolfsenberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
York, J., Giangreco, M., Vandercook, T., & Macdonald, C. (1992). Integrating support person- nel in the inclusive classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
136 JODY MARIE BARTZ ET AL.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by T
ex as
A &
M U
ni ve
rs ity
A t 1
3: 17
1 8
Fe br
ua ry
2 01
5 (P
T )
