Independent Learning Project

MAXIMIZING THE SPECIAL EDUCATION LABEL:
HOW EFFECTIVE IS OUR MAINSTREAMING

A GUIDE FOR PARENTS AND TEACHERS

An Independent Learning Project Presented by
Erica Rose Nelson

To
Dr. Myrel Seigler
Dr. Roberta Hatcher

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
The degree of Master of Education:
Teacher of Students with Moderate Disabilities (PreK-12)

Cambridge College
Cambridge Massachusetts

April 2011

This is an unpublished Independent Learning Project

Copyright by Erica Rose Nelson
December, 2010
All Rights Reserved

i.
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS

I sincerely want to show my appreciation to the Cambridge College faculty for their patience and support during this extensive writing process.

ii.
Abstract

iii.
Table of Contents

Chapter 1
Introduction
Problem Statement
Rationale
Anticipated Outcome
Research Question
Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

References

iv
Maximizing Sped Label 1
Chapter 1
Introduction

What is the first thought provoked when school employee notes that a student is a special education? For some, the first thought is questioning what the disability is, and for some the first thought is what the guidelines of the Individualized Education Plan are for the special education student. The question I want to become the first thought is how can we maximize on this special education student?
To answer this question, we must first examine what maximizing on the label encompasses. To many we think of the definition of maximizing as making something as great as you can. In the world of technology, it is a term that is a button or command to enlarge a window to the full size of the display screen. To truly maximize on the special education label, individuals or societies must gain the maximum amount out of the resources they have available to them. This definition opens the door to the new thought I desire school employees to have when someone mentions a special education student. What can our school environment due to improve the learning conditions for this special education student?

Once a student has the special education label, they have a team of school faculty that play a vital role in the success of the student. From the administration to the guidance counselor to the special education teacher, the student’s success is dependent on ability of this team to create a plan that maximizes on the school culture to ensure a proper learning environment.
Maximizing Sped Labels 2

These stakeholders must demand an exceptional level of decorum, professionalism, accuracy, communication and compassion. Realistically, it seems impossible for all of these vitally important attributes to be displayed by our stakeholders within the school on each encounter with a student, but it is a goal that should be on everyone’s horizon. In retrospect, if we envision that each child is within our personal cohort such as their own child or a niece and nephew, our outcome for reaching this goal would be vastly different.

Problem Statement
In special education, students that are mainstreamed can potentially loose their optimal heights in education because educators have not maximized their relationships by using the special education label.

Rationale
Special education students’ academic achievement relies heavily on the effectiveness of the team of faculty and staff or stakeholders working on their behalf. To achieve this optimal goal, these stakeholders must maximize their relationships to achieve success.

Maximizing Sped Label 3

Anticipated Outcome
The ideal outcome is a learning environment where special education students are receiving the optimal educational experience as a result of school faculty stakeholders maximizing within their relationships.
Everyone must work in unison on achieving superior academic success for each student as a result of a community effort.
Research Question
How can educators and parents maximize the relationships between the school’s stakeholders to ensure a proper learning environment has been created for each student.

Maximizing Sped Label 4

Chapter 2
Mainstreaming is a term used in public schools to describe ways in which educational strategies are utilized to provide appropriate special education services to disabled students assuring the least amount of disruption in routine, while maximizing relationships and contact with general education peers. In its inception, mainstreaming was derived from the Civil Rights desegregation movement. Mainstreaming and desegregation assured students with diversity or disability the same rights to equal educational opportunities (Ritter, Michel, & Irby, 1999, p. 10). The role of general education teachers in public education environments in relationship to special education is one of the most challenging obstacles general educators indicate they experience. One of the main concerns that general education teachers express is in carrying out mainstreaming and inclusion is in making appropriate accommodations for special education students.
Mainstreaming is a term used in public schools to describe ways in which educational strategies are utilized to provide appropriate special education services to disabled students assuring the least amount of disruption in routine, while maximizing relationships and contact with general education peers. Mainstreaming has also been described as "the act of returning previously removed students back to regular classrooms (Lilly, 2001, p. 86).
A complement to mainstreaming, inclusion can best be described as the "full-time education of students with and without disabilities in regular classroom settings" (Denning, 1995). Inclusion has been described as a total integration process with special education support given according to the special education student 's needs provided primarily within the general education
Maximizing Sped Label 5

classroom (Ritter, Michel, & Irby, 1999, p. 10). Villa and Thousand (2003), described inclusion as the "principle and practice of considering general education as the placement of first choice for all learners" (p. 20). This approach further encouraged special education teachers to offer services, supplemental intervention supports, and other appropriate educational interventions within the general education environment, instead of removing students from the general education classroom for services. At its root concept, inclusion is about valuing everyone 's ideas and beliefs and treating everyone equally in such a way that is not excluding others in any capacity (Messiou, 2006, p. 41). Schwartz (2007) described special education supports provided in a general education environment as "adaptations, differentiated instruction, and universal design strategies" (p. 39).
Central to understanding purposes for mainstreaming and inclusion, "least restrictive environment" can best be described as the general education classroom (Schwartz, 2007, p. 40). Villa and Thousand (2003) interpret the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a federal law that mandated that children with disabilities have the right to an education in the least restrictive environment. They reported ways in which the interpretation of least restrictive environment has changed over the last thirty years. At the laws ' inception, educational professionals most likely interpreted IDEA to mean that only individuals with mild disabilities like those eligible for speech would be mainstreamed, because their presence in the general education environment would produce minimal impact. By the 1980s, the interpretation of least restrictive environment evolved to include the practice of mainstreaming students with more
Maximizing Sped Label 6

moderate and severe disabilities. As the interpretation of least restrictive environment has evolved, many more students have been served in general education environments. However, the methods by which disabled children are served in "mainstreamed" environments remain disproportionate depending upon the interpretation of what constitutes the "least restrictive environment" (Villa & Thousand, 2003, p. 20).
In its inception, mainstreaming was derived from the Civil Rights desegregation movement. Mainstreaming and desegregation assured students with diversity or disability the same rights to equal educational opportunities (Ritter, Michel, & Irby, 1999, p. 10). From a historical perspective, former President Gerald Ford signed a special education bill called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act that established a federal mandate designed to allow "free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities" in 1975. Presently, approximately 6.8 million children are served under what is now called IDEA (Davis, 2007, p. 21). The Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), PL 99-457 (1986,1991) was enacted in response to the need for early intervention services for families of young children with disabilities. Part H of the statute directed states to develop and implement statewide, family-centered, community based, comprehensive, coordinated, multi-disciplinary interagency programs of early intervention services for disabled children. In 1997, amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act added language that required Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education students to define how the student would be included with and progress from the general education curriculum. Later in 2004, IDEA amendments, titled the Individuals with
Maximizing Sped Label 7

Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) retained and augmented access to general education by requiring that a student 's IEP would specifically designate accommodations and curriculum modifications to guarantee student involvement with and advancement in the general education curriculum (Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007, p. 101).
Literally, the idea for changing special education began with IDEA as it was originally described by the federal government 1975. The federal government not only influenced special education through the law, but it also influences states and districts through federal monies directed to the states and districts aimed at upholding the law. This money ensures continuity in delivery of service, but also allows the federal government to dictate, to a certain degree, how special education services are delivered to students in educational environments (Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). States are more willing to comply with governmental regulations when money is involved.
At the state level, money is also generated through taxes that are directed to individual districts and schools depending on the numbers of students served through special education services. In most districts, roughly 12 to 15 percent of the overall school population receives special education services. These districts and schools receive a specific allotment from tax monies aimed at providing students with appropriate special education services. These monies are utilized to support districts in providing special assistance and accommodative supports such as paraeducators, interventionists, and specialized equipment to improve opportunities for special education students by allowing them to access the least restrictive environment (Davis, 2007).
Maximizing Sped Label 8

Students are most deeply impacted by how these laws are upheld. Before mainstreaming, children with disabilities were often segregated from general education environments and sequestered into special classes, or custodial environments. These custodial environments were not designed to be educational environments, but rather safekeeping environments where little preparation to live actively in a democratic society was offered. With little or no training in real life, individuals housed in these environments were permanently segregated from society (Lilly, 2001, p. 83). It was only after the desegregation movement that the drive toward inclusion was integrated into how we now know public education.
Schwartz (2007) described special education supports provided in a general education environment as "adaptations, differentiated instruction, and universal design strategies" (p. 39). Appropriate and consistent integration of these mandates insures more appropriate and inclusive behaviors on the part of general education students in relation to their interactions with special education students, as these students receive much of their instruction in the same classroom. As general education students witness the inclusive policies dictating interactions with special education students, they also adopt many of these same ways of thinking. Thus, students are the beneficiaries of appropriately integrating lawful practices that govern out interactions.
In schools, teachers must assume varying roles. One of their primary roles is advancing the law and carrying out lawful mandates. Many times, the framework for upholding the law is not well defined, and teachers struggle with how to best make accommodations to initiate best practice. The role of general education teachers in public education environments in relationship to special
Maximizing Sped Label 9

education is one of the most challenging obstacles general educators indicate they experience. One of the main concerns that general education teachers express is in carrying out mainstreaming and inclusion is in making appropriate accommodations for special education students. Often, appropriate accommodations are not well defined (Lilly, 2001). These obstacles sometimes create difficulties
Curriculum accommodations typically describe the practices utilized by general education teachers in facilitating Individual Learning Plans in the general education settings. Curriculum accommodation is a term used to typically describe differentiated instruction models, curriculum modifications, curriculum augmentation, and specific accommodations that ensure student involvement and access to the general education curriculum. These adaptations and modifications refer to the methods in which curriculum content is "represented or presented to students to promote student engagement, either through pedagogy or the use of technology." Additionally, these skills often include specific practical, cognitive, and student driven practices that include "shadowing, verbatim notes, graphic or advance organizers, self regulation strategies, semantic maps, mnemonics, chunking, question, and visualizing strategies." All of these strategies are described to help general educators in supporting the special education student 's success in a general education least restrictive environment (Baker, Gersten, & Scanlon, 2002; Graham & Harris, 2005, Jitendra, Edwards, Choutka, & Treadway, 2002, Pressley, 2005).
School administrators are leaders in how mainstreaming, inclusion, and least restrictive environment are practiced and supported in schools. Phillips, Alfred, Brulle, and Shank (1990)
Maximizing Sped Label 10

indicated that healthy guidance and positive support by the principal was critical in upholding the law of inclusion. Principals are central in helping alleviate personality conflicts, providing adequate planning time, providing collaboration among staff, and in allowing special education teachers to spend structured and sufficient time in general education classrooms (p. 334). Daam, Beirne-Smith and Latham (2001) also indicated that all educators should be given more training in collaboration, and special education teachers, general education teachers, and administrators should be provided with professional development to help them understand their lawful responsibilities in providing a collaborative environment in which inclusion is made available to all groups (p. 336).
From a school-wide approach, Villa and Thousand (2003) stated that school administrators should carry out a "systems approach" for developing successful promotion and implementation of inclusive education. They recommended a program of "visionary leadership and administrative support" complemented by redefined roles and relationships between students and professionals, and a collaborative, supportive educational environment. Additionally, they advised that inclusive education has been most successful in school communities that already reorganized to meet the diverse needs of students. Best organizational practices that supported an inclusive environment included:
• Trans-disciplinary teaming,
• Block scheduling,
Maximizing Sped Label 11

• Multi-age student grouping,
• Looping,
• School-wide positive behavior support and discipline approaches,
• Detracking, and
• School-within-a-school family configuration of students and teachers (Villa and Thousand, 2003, p. 20).
Additionally, these theorists irrefutably stated that in order for inclusive education to succeed, administrators must articulate a new vision of leadership, build consensus for developing the vision, and lead all stakeholders to the shared vision. This shared vision of leadership should be underscored by clarifying the legal requirements of meeting all students ' needs in the least restrictive environment.
To clarify these issues, it is important to define barriers to mainstreaming and ways of overcoming these barriers. It can be argued that central to many of the difficulties regarding inclusion and mainstreaming in the past has referred to labeling children based on their weaknesses rather than their strengths. Lilly (2001) argued that compulsory education and intelligence testing invoked conflict in a school system originally "designed for the elite." From intelligence tests, educational professionals could then label students based on their ability and
Maximizing Sped Label 13

postulate a potential cause for failure if students were not successful as learners. Lilly further indicated that labels invoke educators to over-generalize in regard to individual children (p. 83).
Another main issue that produces difficulty in adequately fulfilling the law is that these terms are not uniformly defined. According to Villa and Thousand (2003), "the nature of inclusion varies." In some schools, inclusion is best expressed by the physical presence of social integration of special education students within the general education environment. In other schools, inclusion means "active modification of content, instruction, and assessment practices so that students can successfully engage in core academic experiences and learning" (p. 20). This is a significant issue, because it leads to inconsistency in how students are treated as well as in teacher expectations. Until these issues are resolved, barriers to mainstreaming will continue to exist in America 's schools.
A third critical barrier to providing mandated special education practice involves a lack of collaborative communication among all critical stakeholders. New teachers may not be brought into full knowledge of district practices, unless the new teacher seeks out information. Daam, Beirne-Smith, and Latham (2001) reported that general education teachers often felt unprepared to teach special education students and both special education and general education teachers often lack the communication skills needed to build a team oriented, collaborative environment to support students who need support the most (p. 332). They further supported research conducted by Phillips, Alfred, Brulle, and Shank (1990) indicating that healthy guidance and positive support by the principal was critical in upholding the law of inclusion. Other barriers
Maximizing Sped Label 14

that obscured positive collaboration included (a) conflicting personalities, (b) insufficient planning time, and (c) insufficient time in the classroom by the special education teacher (p. 334).
Lilly (2001) outlined specific interventions that he argued would produce a mainstreamed environment. These practices included:
• Avoiding over-generalized labels that imply general deficits;
• Setting specific, achievable objectives and teaching directly to those objectives;
• Establishing firm, fair classroom rules and enforcing them consistently;
• Identifying students with self-esteem deficits and designing activities aimed at developing self-confidence;
• Individualizing assignments to meet the direct needs of each students utilizing a point of reference for the selected student;
• Meeting the needs of students with reading deficits or other academic deficits by providing alternative strategies to help them access the curriculum;
• Seeking advice from other educational professionals and other resources in meeting the needs of the special education student; and
Maximizing Sped Label 15

• Providing ongoing self-evaluation to determine teacher progress in meeting the requirements of children with special needs (pp. 87-88).
Additionally, supports to overcome barriers to mainstreaming were described as professional development, in-service opportunities, coursework, professional support groups, and other coaching and mentoring opportunities that would help teachers understand and teach differentiation strategies, current theories of learning that make teaching practices relevant and meaningful, authentic alternatives to paper and pencil tests, a balanced approach to literacy, thematic interdisciplinary curriculum approaches emphasizing differentiation, and infused technology throughout the curriculum (Villa & Thousand, 2003, p. 22). Overall, this new way of thinking about special education emphasizes "a system of diversity" in response to best practice, inclusion, mainstreaming, and meeting the requirements of the least restrictive environment. This transformed paradigm fits with multiple levels of meeting the needs of a diverse educational environment. Especially necessary for new teachers, it is important to have an understanding of the background of IDEA, definitions for models of inclusion and mainstreaming, and least restrictive environment, and some understanding of how to successfully integrate these models within a positive framework.
Appropriate professional development and collaboration are central in determining outcomes and success in public education environments. All of the parties interviewed for the Daam, Beirne-Smith and Latham (2001) study indicated that all educators should be given more training in collaboration, and special education teachers, general education teachers, and administrators
Maximizing Sped Label 16

should be provided with professional development to help them understand their lawful responsibilities in providing a collaborative environment in which inclusion is made available to all groups (p. 336).
Teachers in other countries are also working hard to understand the principles of inclusion and mainstreaming. Researchers from the United Kingdom argued that inclusion in schools has been delayed because educational institutions are unable to include all children in the least restrictive environment due to the barriers of "lack of knowledge, lack of will, lack of vision, lack of resources, and lack of morality" (Clough & Garner, 2003, p. 87). The solution offered to overcome these barriers included providing adequate support to teachers designed to help them support students. For example, Lieberman (1996) and Spindler and Biott (2000) asserted that professional development was key in providing opportunities for peer coaching, critical friends, appraisal, and collaborative work (Harrison, 2002). Additional studies from New Zealand, Botswana, India, and Greece similarly supported the need for inclusion as a model for providing equal access to equal education for all. Central to this concept, Messiou (2006) argued that marginalized individual 's voices "should have a central role in the process of inclusion" (p. 40). He called for more research to be done in "inclusive education" in order that educators would find constructive methods for valuing everyone 's ideas and beliefs (p. 41).
As educators, one of our primary responsibilities in a public school environment is a continued pledge to uphold the law by providing and protecting equal opportunities for all students regardless of the academic, emotional, or behavioral needs of the student. This essay has
Maximizing Sped Label 17

purposed to help readers better understand mainstreaming and inclusion from a public school, general educator 's standpoint to insure that the law is understood, supported, and hailed as a guideline of collaborative conduct, because such a substantial gulf exists in providing differentiated education strategies and in producing a classroom environment that provides an inclusive, mainstreamed access to the least restrictive environment.

Maximizing Sped Labels 18
References
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process and for meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 17, 65 - 77.
Clough, P., & Garner, G. (2003). Special education needs and inclusive education: Origins and current issues. In S. Bartlett and D. Burton (Eds), Education Studies: Essential Issues. London: Sage Press.
Daam, C. J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2001). Administrators ' and teachers ' perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121 (2), 331
Davis, M. (2007). Special education was signed by Ford, despite reservations.
Denning, W. V. (1995). An analysis of the effects of full-time inclusion on the academic achievement of elementary general education students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1995. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11904.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Harrison, J. K. (2002). The induction of newly qualified teachers in secondary schools. Journal of In-Service Education, 28 (2), 255 -275.
Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, 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 and Practice, 17, 252 - 267.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher Learning: New Policies, New Practices . New York: Teachers ' College Press.
Lilly, S. M. (2001). Special education - a cooperative effort. Theory Into Practice, 15 (2), 82 - 89.
Messiou, K. (2006). Conversations with children: Making sense of marginalization in primary school settings. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21 (1), 39 - 54.
Phillips, W., Alfred, K., Brulle, A., & Shank, K. (1990). The will and skill of regular educators. Eastern Illinois University Charleston, II (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED320323).
Pressley, M. (2005). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Ritter, C., Michel, C., & Irby, B. (1999). Concerning inclusion: Perceptions of middle school students, their parents, and teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18 (2), 10 - 17.
Schwartz, P. (2007). Special education: A service, not a sentence. Educational Leadership, 64 (5), 39 - 42.
Soukup, J., Wehmeyer, M., Bashinski, S. & Bovaird, J. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74 (1), 101 - 120.
Spindler, J., & Biott, C. (2000). Target setting in the induction of newly qualified teachers: Emerging colleagueship in a context of performance management. Educational Research, 42 (3), 275 - 285.
Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2001). Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd Ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.

References: Daam, C. J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2001). Administrators ' and teachers ' perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121 (2), 331 Davis, M Lilly, S. M. (2001). Special education - a cooperative effort. Theory Into Practice, 15 (2), 82 - 89. Messiou, K Phillips, W., Alfred, K., Brulle, A., & Shank, K. (1990). The will and skill of regular educators. Eastern Illinois University Charleston, II (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED320323). Pressley, M. (2005). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Ritter, C., Michel, C., & Irby, B. (1999). Concerning inclusion: Perceptions of middle school students, their parents, and teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18 (2), 10 - 17. Schwartz, P Soukup, J., Wehmeyer, M., Bashinski, S. & Bovaird, J. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74 (1), 101 - 120. Spindler, J., & Biott, C Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2001). Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd Ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.