CONTROVERSIAL THERAPIES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional PracticeJohn W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, and James A. Mulick

CHAPTER 8 

The Delusion of Full InclusionDevery R. Mock and James M. Kauffman

Chapter Presentation by

Leslie MozulayABA 553- Assessing Autism Interventions

Summer Session A 2012- Dr. Kenneth Reeve

BACKGROUND

• 1975 – U.S. Legislation

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act

which gives all children regardless of disability the

right to a free public education.• later referred to as Public Law 94-142• 1990 version of this law, the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), started an "inclusion movement" which recommends that no child be assigned to a special classroom or be segregated into another part of the school

I N C L U S I O N

• DOES IT WORK?

• IF SO, HOW?

• IF NOT, WHY NOT?

INCLUSION vs. FULL INCLUSION

• Inclusion: educating disabled children part time in regular classrooms

• Full inclusion: educating disabled children full time in regular classrooms ono time outside regular classroomsoalways learn in an environment not tailored for the

disabledoexpected to keep up with the pace of non-disabled

studentsRead more: Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD

 

Consideration of F U L L I N C L U S I O N from the viewpoint of . . .

Scientist

Social Advocate

Legislator

School Board Member

School Administrator

Behaviorist

Teacher- General Education

Teacher- Special Education

Aide- Paraprofessional

Parent

Student

Sibling

Other

INCLUSION IN ACTIONFOR AND AGAINST

http://www.google.com/search?q=inclusion+classroom&hl=en&domains=seab.envmed.rochester.edu&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2zjBT8KZA4i06gG4wOC0Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CGUQsAQ&biw=866&bih=573

Dr. Alan Harchik of the

May Institute for Children with Autism says,

"It is unrealistic to expect that regular education teachers will always have the specific training...be aware of the latest research, or be able to readily adapt the school's curriculum."

“Thus, children with disabilities need a supplementary class and teacher who can deal with these issues.” Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD

VIDEOTeachers Network

"INCLUSION:

Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)

in 3rd Grade.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLezaO949TE&feature=related

RECAP VIDEO

INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)

in 3rd Grade

RECAP OF VIDEO INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)

in 3rd Grade

• means special education as well general education are taught by two teachers all day long

• collaborative team teaching• small and large groups for smaller teacher to student ratio• differentiated instruction• modified and enriched curriculum• sense of community allows all children to learn and grow together• philosophy--- all deserve to learn in LRE• honors all learning styles• opportunity to learn all people are different • all have different strengths• all need different things to do our best• fair is not always equal• and anyone can learn from anyone else

REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE

of the 1980s

• forerunner of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT

• elimination of the necessity of special education for at least many, if not most (Dunn,1968;Deno,1970)

• assumptions includedo all students are very much alikeomany or most students with disabilities can

be taught by regular classroom teachers (Kavale & Forness, 2000)

FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT of the 1990s

• complete elimination of special education as a separate entity (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994)

• assumption that normalizing influence of the general education classroom is more important and powerful than specialized, therapeutic interventions, even in the face of evidence that separate, special environments produce better outcomes for some students

(e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).

Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS

• Cost factors• Separation from mainstream

and Self Esteem• Misidentification of students• Quality of services• Continuum of alternative placements• Policy making

COSTS of Special Education

As more students with disabilities can be served in general education classes by regular teachers, FIM saves on cost for ospace (separate classes)ostaff (special teachers)ointensified instruction

(lower pupil-teacher ratios) (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)

Full Inclusion Movement’s concern with SELF ESTEEM

• self-esteem of students is damaged with separation

• “segregating” special education students in homogenous groupings in self-contained programs is a disadvantage

(Monk and Kauffman, 2005)

Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKSMISIDENTIFICATION and QUALITY OF SERVICES

of special education students

Concerns with students not being able to reach their true potential because

o disabilities are not properly definedo instructional practices are fragmentedo teachers have low expectations and poor

trainingo students are separated from the mainstream

(Alexander, Gray, & Lyon, 1993; Lyon & Fletcher, 2001; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996, 1997, 1998; McGill-Franzen, 1994; Slavin, 2001; Slavin & Madden, 2001a, 2001b)

Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS

CONTINUUM OF ALTERNATIVE

PLACEMENTS (CAP)

• CAP focuses on “free appropriate public education” • CAP includes instruction in general education, special

education, special schools, home instruction, hospital, institutions

• CAP stresses Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)• CAP requires provision for supplementary services• CAP promotes opportunities for student to interact with

peers who are nondisabled, to the extent appropriate

To accomplish

FULL INCLUSION • Lipsky and Gartner (1997) suggested, “ use

of instructional strategies that experienced and qualified teachers use for all children.”

o COOPERATIVE LEARNINGo CURRICULAR ADAPTATIONS

• MODIFICATIONS• ACCOMMODATIONS

o WHOLE LANGUAGE

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

• 12 studies were reviewed by Tateyama-Sniezek (1990)

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE= cooperative learning

DEPENDENT VARIABLE= academic achievement

• OVER 10 YEARS LATER completion of another literature review by McMaster and Fuchs (2002)

CONCLUSIONregarding

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

NO GUARANTEE of academic gains . . .

“the use of empirically supported cooperative elements may be an important, but NOT A SUFFICIENT, determinant of cooperative learning’s effectiveness, specifically for student with LD.”

(Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p. 118)

The authors state . . .

“Why would we expect classmates to be better at helping LD students learn than professional teachers using an empirically validated curriculum?”

(Mock & Kauffman, p. 118)

CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS

NINE TYPES

QUANTITY TIME LEVEL OF SUPPORT

INPUT DIFFICULTY OUTPUT

PARTICIPATION ALTERNATE GOALS

SUBSTITUTE CURRICULUM

Diana Browning Wright with permission from Jeff Sprague, Ph.D. from an original by DeSchenes, C., Ebeling, D., & Sprague, J. (1994). Adapting Curriculum & Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms: A Teachers Desk Reference. ISDDCSCI Publication.NOTE: Diana Browning Wright, Teaching & Learning 2003- Positive Environments-Network of Trainers (PENT) Director/School Psychologist/Behavior Analyst

CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS

o Accommodations

o Modifications

ADAPTATIONS ACCOMMODATION

Provides equal access to taking in information for learning and allows students to use different ways to demonstrate knowledge

DOES NOT alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject area

Grading is the same

MODIFICATIONCurriculum and/or instruction is changed to provide students with meaningful & productive learning experiences based on individual needs and abilities.

DOES alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject area

Grading is different

EXAMPLES ACCOMMODATIONS MODIFICATIONS

• seating in room

• extra time

• level of support (peer, aide, teacher)

• verbal rather than written responses

• address learning styles by altering assignments

• visual aides

• manipulatives

• alter goals or outcome expectations

• lower the criteria for grading

• student works on different skill area (addition instead of multiplication)

• reduce amount of work expected (10 spelling words instead of 20)

• allow use of calculator

CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS used in response to problems for students with mild to severe disabilities can be seen as

Quack remedies

Not cure-alls

Weak, stress reducing treatments (Worrall, 1990)

What Full Inclusion Movement advocates fail to see . . .

• how EFFECTIVE, IF AT ALL, an adaptation may be

• that perhaps “separate or different objectives for one

or a few students can lead to their ISOLATION OR SEGREGATION” (Stainbeck et. al., 1996).

• that adaptations can be made in an INDISCRIMINATE MANNER

(questioning validity of adaptation and instruction)

• that a student may NOT be ENGAGED in the learning process with an adaptation aimed at a large group and being inappropriate for an individual

1980s WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH

in FULL INCLUSION CLASSROOMS• abandons specific skill instruction - decoding written

language

• focuses on reading process as a whole- reading as using language

• rejects value of quantitative evidence of effectiveness

• adopted in absence of any credible evidence of its efficacy (Adams, 1995; Slaving, 2001)

After implementation of

WHOLE LANGUAGE• RESULTS of 1992 and 1994 National

Assessment of Education Progress

omore than 40% of fourth graders were unable to read grade-appropriate texts (Adams, 1997)

ono sufficient evidence to warrant use with students with or without disabilities (Mock & Kauffman, 2005)

Delusion of Full InclusionA mainstream FULL INCLUSION setting • downplays need for specific instruction• holds out the false hope that the Full

Inclusion Movement will result in better instruction for students with disabilities while undercutting fiscal support for special education.

(Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)

Monk and Kauffman (2005) indicate

the “delusion of full inclusion” includes at least one of the following assumptions, if not all of them:

• If all students receive instruction in the same setting, they will receive the same opportunities to learn.

• Fair treatment of students with disabilities can be achieved only when the students are in the same place as student without disabilities.

• Students with disabilities should be treated like all other students.

(see Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000, p. 67, for the last statement of the last assumption)

THOSE FOR

FULL INCLUSION

ignore

and

misinterpret research findings

(Kauffman, 1989; Monk & Kauffman, 2005)

“pseudoscience”

• Does Full Inclusion claim itself as a scientific revolution?

• Does Full Inclusion withstand careful scrutiny?

(Sherman, 2001)

“noxious delusion”• changing the place in which teaching

is preferred• use of a “mainstream” setting

o considered by proponents of Full Inclusion Movement as “the place to be”

obetter than what is or can be offered in a separate, special setting

(e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).

• contrary to common sense • inconsistent with what we know about

disabilities• lacking credible supporting evidence

Worrall (1990) ; (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 113)

The FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT fits

criteria for

fraud or quackery:

WHAT ABOUTR E S E A R C H

supporting

OPPOSITION

to the

FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT ?

OPPOSITION to the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT

• “delivery of specialized intervention services within

regular classrooms highly problematic” (Walker & Bullis 1991,p.

84).

• effective teaching of a child is delayed or denied by

the placement (Crockett

& Kauffman, 1999; Palmer, Fuller, Arora, & Nelson, 2001).

• problematic behavior triggers includeo interaction with peerso unpredictable reinforcement scheduleso environments filled with desks, chairs, books, and

many other objects (Jacobson, Foxx, Mulick, 2005, p. 115)

OPPOSITION to

FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT

• educational practice changes in the absence of empirical support have proven harmful to student progress

(Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p 119).

• the Full Inclusion Movement is seen as harmful when there are no special education programs for students with severe disabilities

(Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995)

PARENTAL VIEWPOINTS

Parents of children with severe disabilities found general education to be unhelpful for their children. (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998, 1999).

Mother of a child with autism . . .

in a G.E. classroom “so much is counterintuitive in the treatment of autism that her son Daniel’s general education teachers often hinder rather than help him learn to cope with his classroom environment.” Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p 180).

Parent of two children with disabilities . . .

considered “mainstreaming as something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Like any other fad, it is being evangelized as a cure-all. It isn’t. It is terrific in some cases. In others, it is child abuse.” (Palmer, et. al. 2001, p. 482)

STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION

The Delusion of Full Inclusion authors make reference to Seymour Sarason’s (2001) parallel comparison between society’s initial responses to the virus that causes AIDS with the ignorance and irrelevant claims made in relationship to the Full Inclusion Movement.

Seymour Sarason’s Comparison

INITIAL RESPONSES to VIRUS that CAUSES AIDS

FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT

used prior experiences to understand

  rife with ignorance  dealing with irrelevant claims of cause and maltreatment

involved nonsequiturs

presented oversimplifications

involved common willful ignorance

NONSEQUITUR-

does not follow logically from anything previously said . . .

Advocates of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT argue for policies unchecked by empirical science. . . “Without a properly rendered research base, policy analysis becomes policy advocacy because reason alone and the influence of values goes unchecked” (Kavale, Fuchs, and Sruggs, 1994)

“Argument unaccompanied by reliable scientific evidence is simply propaganda.” (Sasso, 2001)

OVERSIMPLIFICATIONwith ADVOCATES for the

FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENTseeing it as a moral matter of civil rights and likening current special education placement options to racial

segregation, apartheid and slavery.

OPPONENTS of

the Full Inclusion Movement

state Special Education and matters such as these “are built on entirely different legal, moral, and educational

premises.” (see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Kauffman, 2002; Kauffman & Lloyd, 1995).

OVERSIMPLIFICATION Schools-Students-Research

• Difference of FULL INCLUSION in elementary, middle and high schoolso Inclusion implementation is different at various levelso Imbalance of research

• Resistance to change o Teacherso Studentso Instruction

(Mock & Kauffman, 2005)

WILLFUL IGNORANCEwith research reviewed

so far,

the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT

is based

on false premises. (Mock and Kauffman, 2005)

WILLFUL IGNORANCE

FALSE PREMISES

• Inclusion in general education classes achieve better outcomes than pullout class

• Separation of special education students causes them to fall further behind general education peers

(Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, et al., 2001)

WILLFUL IGNORANCE

Efficacy studies used to discredit special education practices

compromised by methodological shortcomings

• consistency within group membership (Ysseldyke and Bielinski, 2002)

as well as, • control for teacher effects• established criterion level of instructional performance• use of standardized measures• use of same measures between pretest and posttest• control for sample heterogeneity• use of the correct unit of analysis

o reported inflated treatment outcomeso reported unreliable treatment outcomes

(Simmerman and Swanson, 2001)

CRITICAL CHALLENGE for students with disabilities, is how we

view and treat difference . . .

• The challenge is to not ONLY have the individual feel included and accepted BUT ALSO

have the individual learn to read or learn to feed oneself.

• SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE of a disability does not cause the disability to disappear.

• TREATMENTS used for one do not necessarily work for another.

• PLACEMENT for one does not necessarily work for another.

The FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT may be popular because of the appearance of being “a road to quick and easy success” which ends the “separation from the mainstream” and as a result is “the dissolution of special education as a separate, identifiable entity.”

(Monk & Kauffman, 2005; Kauffman, 1999a, 2002; Zigmond, 1997)

But to really meet the needs of students with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, then

the task requires . . .

• Great effort to meet needs• Funding• Trained and effective teachers• Individualized programs• Appropriate placements• Use of systematic, empirical methods that

draw on observation or experiment

Special education is by nature

paradoxical, in that it is a way of

achieving equal opportunities

through treatment that is different

(and therefore unequal). (Monk and Kauffman, 2005)

Without different treatment,

unfairness is assured . . .

(Monk & Kauffman, 2005).

. . . to maximize equity, we offer

special education to students with

disabilities.

(see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Hockenbury, Kauffman, & Hallahan, 1999-2000).

“Although special education surely needs significant improvement,

it is the improvement

of instruction itself-

not the place in which it is offered-

that is critical.”

(Kauffman, 1999a, 2002; Zigmond, 1997)

INCLUSION IS BELONGING

It is not a program . . .

It is not just a place . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9-XX9227ek&feature=relmfu

QUESTIONSor

COMMENTS

RESOURCESFardell, Sarah. (2012). eHow. Retrieved from http:www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html (5/30/12).

Mock, Devery R. and James M. Kauffman. (2005). The Delusion of Full Inclusion. Jacobson, Foxx, & Mulick (Ed.), Controversial Therapies for Developmental Disabilities – Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice (pp. 113-128). NYC: Routledge, reprint 2010.

 

 Wright, Diana Browning. (2003). Teaching and Learning Trainings Positive Environments-Network of Trainers. Retrieved from http://acts.lausd.net/BTSA/Documents/Ed%20Spec/Grid. of.Nine.pdf