read the item and answer the activity

Let’s end the debate about whether to include students with severe disabilities in the general education classroom (see box, “What Does the Literature Say?”). Let’s focus on how and when and where. This article provides helpful perspectives and suggestions for teachers, students, and parents in the struggle to provide an appropriate education for all students.

Here, we provide a cascade of inte- gration options for inclusion. These integration options are based on the work of many researchers (Bradley, King-Sears, & Tessier-Switlick, 1997; Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 1998; Janney & Snell, 2000; Stainback & Stainback, 2000).

In these options, we have applied content area instruction to inclusive set- tings, using a case example. We have also outlined a system designed to facil- itate collaborative planning between general and special education teachers, using a student’s individualized educa- tion program (IEP) as a foundation for decision making. Use of the IEP ensures that educational programming is both individualized and integrated with the general classroom curriculum.

The Cascade of Integration Options The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) promotes the con- cept of placement of students with dis- abilities into the least restrictive envi-

ronment (LRE). The concept of LRE is based on the belief that educators must provide a range of placement options (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Thomas & Rapport, 1998). A cascade of placement options can range from the home-school and general education class setting to institutional placements. This cascade of services highlights the need to indi- vidualize and base decisions for place- ment on the student’s unique needs.

As noted, schools and districts are placing more students with severe dis- abilities in general education settings. But placement alone is insufficient to guaran- tee that the student with disabilities will benefit educationally. The optimal inte- gration option is based on two factors: • The type of activity undertaken in the

general education setting. • The objectives stated on the student’s

IEP. Decisions about including a student

with severe disabilities are frequently ori- ented toward fitting the student into the existing general education classroom activities and focus primarily on social integration (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). The social integration focus negates the opportunity for the “includ- ed” student to receive instruction in con- tent areas. Although we acknowledge the value of social integration, we advocate that programming should emanate from the student’s IEP objectives. Teachers should consider content area coursework

as a means by which the student may meet his or her IEP objectives. For exam- ple, teachers can address many objec- tives from the IEP in the general educa- tion setting by considering a range of adaptations and accommodations.

The Cascade of Integration Options illustrates a range of accommodations for students with severe disabilities who are included in general education set- tings (see box, “Cascade of Integration Options”). This cascade includes the following poles: • The least restrictive inclusion option

in which no changes are made (unadapted participation in the gen- eral education curriculum).

• A more restrictive option in which students with severe disabilities are temporarily removed from the setting (functional curriculum outside the general education classroom). The cascade also includes a series of

questions designed to help educators make decisions concerning the most appropriate integration options during content area instruction.

56 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

T E A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

on a l C h il d re

n ,

V o l. 3

5, N

o .

4, p

p .

56 -6

0. C

o p yr

ig h t

20 03

C E C

.

Making Inclusion a Reality for Students

With Severe Disabilities

Pamela S. Wolfe • Tracey E. Hall

The social integration focus of inclusion negates the

opportunity for the student with disabilities to receive instruction in content areas.

Collaborative Planning for Inclusion As noted previously, the collaboration of educators involved with the student hav- ing severe disabilities is essential to ensure appropriate integration and edu- cational programming. Special and gener- al education teachers must share knowl- edge about teaching strategies when planning effective instruction. Through collaborative teaming, teachers set the stage for student achievement of goals.

We have identified two stages of planning for special and general educa- tion teachers when considering options for content area integration. Table 1 lists these stages as preplanning and collab- orative planning activities. • In the preplanning stages, the general

education teacher reflects on the con- tent area unit activities and conducts a task analysis to identify key compo- nents of the lessons. Once the general education teacher has identified com- ponents of the unit, the special educa-

tion teacher is asked to reflect upon the individual student’s IEP objectives

and how those objectives can be addressed in the general education

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2003 ■ 57

What Does the Literature Say About Inclusion for Students With Severe Disabilities?

The inclusion of students with severe disabilities into general education classrooms has become increasingly prevalent (Katsiyannis, Conderman, & Franks, 1995; Sailor, Gee, & Karasoff, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Although IDEA ‘97 does not mandate the inclusion of students with disabilities, the legislation strongly encourages consideration of appropri- ate placement in general education settings.

Definition. The term inclusion has many interpretations. We have adopted the definition of inclusion noted by Mastropieri and Scruggs (2000) in which students with disabilities are served in the general education classroom under the instruction of the gen- eral education teacher. Specifically it involves providing support services to the student in the general education setting versus excluding the student from the setting and their peers. Inclusion requires the provision of adaptations and accommodations to classroom curriculum to ensure that the student will benefit from the placement. The definition, however, does not require that the student with special needs perform at a level comparable to peers without disabilities.

Benefits of Inclusion. Many research studies have shown that the inclusion of students with severe disabilities into general edu- cation settings is beneficial for all students (those with and without disabilities) particularly in relation to social acceptance, self-esteem, and social skills (Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997; Mu, Siegel, & Allinder, 2000). Although some research has indi- cated academic gains, teachers are more challenged to appropriately include students with severe disabilities in the content areas (Heller, 2001). Content domain areas include social studies, sciences, health, and related academic subjects.

Role of the IEP. Given that the goal of inclusion is to assure that all students benefit from instruction, educators must provide pro- gramming that meets the needs of all students including those with disabilities. For students with disabilities, the IEP serves as the document to guide program planning and instruction. Educators should use the IEP to determine what should be taught, how the content should be taught, and who can most appropriately provide instruction.

Roles of Professionals. There are many professionals involved in providing services for students with severe disabilities in included settings. Two frequent members to this team of professionals are the general education and special education teach- ers. The collaboration of these teachers is essential to assure that the student with disabilities is successful in the placement both socially and academically (Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000; Salend, 2001; Salisbury, Evans, & Palombaro, 1997; Snell & Janney, 2000). Both teachers need to be aware of the student’s IEP objectives and use this document to guide program plan- ning decisions and data collection procedures. To meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education class- room, changes in the curriculum may be necessary.

Cascade of Integration Options

Unadapted participation in the general curriculum Same activities, same objectives, same setting • Can student complete the activities as written for the general education class-

room? • Do one or more lesson objectives match the student’s IEP? Adaptations to the general curriculum Same activities, different (related) objectives, same setting • Can the student meet the lesson objectives with minor modifications (time,

response mode)? Embedded skills within the general curriculum Similar activity, different (related) objectives, same setting • Are there components of the activity that can be met by the student, even if not

the central objective of the lesson but match an IEP objective? Functional curriculum in the general education classroom Different activities, different (related) objectives, same setting • Are the class activities greatly unrelated to the student’s IEP? Are there IEP objec-

tives that could be met in the same setting? Functional curriculum outside general education classroom Different activities, different (unrelated) objectives, different setting • Are the class activities greatly unrelated to the student’s IEP? Are IEP objectives

better met in a different setting (require equipment, repetition, etc.)?

content area unit. This stage is a thinking or reflection activity before a meeting; or the teachers could hold a face-to-face meeting to think together.

• In the collaborative planning stage, the two teachers meet to determine the most appropriate integration options in relation to the IEP, what adaptations or accommodations will be required, what additional supports are needed, and how student progress will be monitored (see Table 1).

Case Study of Collaborative Planning Table 2 shows a case example of the Cascade of Integration Options in opera- tion, as educators implement accommo- dations for a student included in content area instruction. The example reflects the plan for a student named Billy, who is included in a sixth-grade classroom.

Billy’s IEP contains instructional objectives in a variety of domain areas, including communication, functional

academics, socialization, fine and gross motor skills, hygiene, and leisure and

58 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Preplanning Planning

General Education Teacher Unit Plan Analysis

Special Education Teacher General and Special Education Teacher

Planning Meeting

What are the objectives of my lessons? * What is the purpose of the unit? * What skills do I want students to

obtain? What are the steps students must under- take to complete the unit? * What are the component activities

within the series of lessons? (list in order)

* Do the activities directly relate to the overall objective of the unit?

* Are the steps logically sequenced? Will completion of the unit include indi- vidual and/or group activities? * Cooperative Learning Groups * Individual * Group activities * Individual and Group

What learner products are expected? * Written report * Oral Report * Tests * Computer Question * Concept maps/graphic displays

What is the time frame to complete the activities for this unit? * Single day * Monthly * Weekly * Bimonthly * Longer term

What are the required materials for the activities and/or unit? * Resource materials * Class text * Computer internet * Misc. materials (school, home)

How will student progress be assessed throughout the unit? * End-of-unit test * Rubric * Performance or subjective evaluation

What are the IEP objectives for the included student(s)?

What domain areas from the IEP can be addressed in the instructional unit?

Does this student have characteristics that will require adaptations? Have I considered: * Cognitive skills * Motor skills * Communication skills * Social skills

What levels of adaptations from the con- tinuum are appropriate for this student for different activities within the unit?

What required unit adaptations could be made for this student in terms of the following: * Materials * Time requirements * Product expectations

Based on the unit analysis, what IEP objectives can be worked on during con- tent area instruction?

What adaptations or accommodations will be required to work on these objec- tives?

What other supports will the general education teacher need to successfully complete the activity? * Teaching assistant present * Adaptive equipment * Technical support * Materials adaptations * Co-teach with special education

teacher Are the student's IEP objectives being addressed in this unit in a meaningful way?

How will teachers communicate about student progress throughout the unit? * Informal discussion * Weekly meetings * Report from assistant * Communication journal

How will progress toward attainment of IEP goal(s) be assessed?

Table 1. Stages of Planning for Curriculum Adaptations for Student With Disabilities in General Education Settings

The social integration focus of inclusion negates the

opportunity for the student with disabilities to receive instruction in content areas.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2003 ■ 59

Table 2. Case Example of Collaborative Planning in Content Area Instruction (Social Studies)

recreation. The teachers formed their instructional plan based on Billy’s IEP objectives. The teachers collaboratively determined how they could meet many of Billy’s IEP objectives within the con- tent area of social studies.

As Table 2 illustrates, the integration option varies across the activities and days of the instructional unit. Further, note that the teachers considered the need for additional support to imple- ment instruction (adaptive equipment, additional personnel, technical sup- port). In this case Billy was able to work on nearly all of his IEP objectives in the content area unit. The one exception is Billy’s IEP objective related to hygiene; for programming related to showering and shaving, Billy is temporarily removed from the general education set- ting (functional curriculum outside the general classroom conducted during an adapted physical education class).

As Table 2 shows, teachers used a variety of integration options. Through the use of integration options, Billy was able to obtain instruction on important IEP objectives even though he did not always work on the general education social studies outcomes. Further, by employing the Cascade of Integration Options, Billy’s teachers were able to provide Billy with the following: • Social skills practice. • Instruction on social studies informa-

tion. • Instruction on IEP objectives that

focused on Billy’s needs. Although this article focuses on the

case of Billy, educators can apply the Cascade of Integration Options with most students and areas of instruction, throughout the school year. Critical to the successful application of the Cascade is a well-designed IEP with clearly stated instructional objectives.

Final Thoughts Inclusion of students with disabilities requires the provision of curriculum and classroom adaptations. But inclusion does not require that the student with special needs perform at a level compa- rable to peers without disabilities. Students with disabilities may be included during content area instruction if teachers consider the Cascade of Integration Options.

If teachers collaborate to employ such options through carefully planned instruction, they can include students with severe disabilities in general edu- cation settings in meaningful ways—for all students.

References Bradley, D. F., King-Sears, M. E., & Tessier-

Switlick, D. M. (1997). Teaching students in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.*

Heller, K.W. (2001). Adaptations and instruc- tion in science and social studies. In J. L. Bigge, S. J. Best, & K. W. Heller (Eds.), Teaching individuals with physical, health, or multiple disabilities (4th ed., pp ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.*

Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V. S. (1998). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*

Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive educa- tion: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 129-141.

Janney, R., & Snell, M. E. (2000). Teachers’ guide to inclusive practices: Modifying schoolwork. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*

Katsiyannis, A., Conderman, G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State practices on inclusion: A national review. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 279-287.

Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educa- tional placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31-47.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The inclusive classroom. Strategies for effec- tive instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.*

Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R .M. (2000). Peer interactions and sociometric status of high school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 142- 152.

Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (2000). Inclusion and school restructuring. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of stu-

dents with severe disabilities (5th ed.), 31- 66. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.*

Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive class- rooms. Effective and reflective practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Salisbury, C. L., Evans, I. M., & Palombaro, M. M. (1997). Collaborative problem-solving to promote the inclusion of young children with significant disabilities in primary grades. Exceptional Children, 63, 195-209.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

Snell, M. E., & Janney, R. (2000). Teachers’ guides to inclusive practices: Collaborative teaming. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (2000). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes*.

Thomas, S. B., & Rapport, M. J. K. (1998). The least restrictive environment: Understanding the directions of the courts. The Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 66- 78.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444 333)

*To order the book marked by an asterisk (*), please call 24 hrs/365 days: 1-800-BOOKS- NOW (266-5766) or (732) 728-1040; or visit them on the Web at http:// www.clicksmart.com/teaching/. Use VISA, M/C, AMEX, or Discover or send check or money order + $4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add’l item) to: Clicksmart, 400 Morris Avenue, Long Branch, NJ 07740; (732) 728-1040 or FAX (732) 728-7080.

Pamela S. Wolfe, Associate Professor, Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Tracey E. Hall (CEC Chapter #18), Senior Research Scientist/Instructional Designer, Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), Peabody, Massachusetts.

Address correspondence to Pamela S. Wolfe, 212A CEDAR Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 (e- mail: [email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 56-60.

Copyright 2003 CEC.

60 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Critical to the successful application of the Cascade is a well-designed IEP with clearly stated instructional

objectives.