Support and Care to the Maximum Appropriate Extent

George Uduigwome and Joshua Konrad

Introduction

It is believed that approximately two hundred and forty million children worldwide live with at least one disability. A disability can be a barrier to education, and inclusive education is believed to expand learning opportunities for historically underrepresented groups. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) supports government efforts to foster and monitor inclusive education systems for students with disabilities (SWDs) in four key areas:

1. Advocacy: promotes the topic of inclusive education in discussions and outreaches geared towards policymakers and the general public.
2. Awareness: raising: spotlights the needs of SWDs by conducting research and hosting events for government partners.
3. Capacity-building: builds the capacity of education systems in partner countries by training school staff and communities, and provides technical assistance to governments.
4. Implementation support: supports in closing the implementation gap between policy and practice by assisting partner countries with monitoring and evaluation.

In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires SWDs to be taught in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The principle of LREs refers to a student's entire education program, including specialized services. It is estimated that between 2005 and 2014, the percentage of U.S. students in special education who spent 80 percent of the day in general education classrooms rose from 54 percent to 63 percent. While countries like the United States, Canada, England, and Sweden are moving toward fully inclusive classrooms, others like Georgia, Malaysia, and Romania still have separate classrooms or limited educational opportunities for students with disabilities.

Perspectives on Inclusion

Inclusion is a means to an end. It is an attempt to meet the needs of diverse learners with the greater goal of making knowledge acquisition more equitable for all learners. The construct of inclusion was first used in the special education context in the Salamanca Statement in 1994, where it was argued that the integration of children with disabilities was possible through inclusive schools. According to the National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI), inclusion is providing all students, including those with severe disabilities, equitable opportunities to receive effective educational services, with supplementary aids and support services as needed, in age-appropriate general education classes in their neighborhood schools, to prepare them for productive lives as full members of the society.

Inclusion and mainstreaming are not defined in IDEA and do not appear in any United States federal legislation, although the phrase "Least Restrictive Environment" is used instead. The absence of a working definition has given rise to several concept interpretations. As pointed out by Francisco, Hartman, and Wang (2020), the absence of a clear international definition, standards, and objectives for inclusion and the least restrictive environment, the lack of statistically scalable empirical studies on the effectiveness of inclusion, and the lack of knowledge and awareness of the provisions of special education laws by stakeholders contribute to the issues surrounding inclusion implementation or the lack thereof.?

Prior to the advent of the 1975 United States federal law, Education for all Handicapped Children Act (later known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA), SWDs were often denied access to public schools, placed in segregated classrooms, or placed in regular classrooms without proper support. IDEA assures SWDs of a free appropriate public education, special education, and, as much as possible, education alongside their typical peers.

IDEA, the primary source of federal funding to states for the identification and education of children with disabilities in the U.S., recognizes fourteen disability categories: (1) autism, (2) deaf-blindness, (3) deafness, (4) emotional disturbance, (5) hearing impairment, (6) intellectual disability, (7) multiple disabilities, (8) orthopedic impairment, (9) other health impairment (OHI), (10) specific learning disability, (11) speech or language impairment, (12) traumatic brain injury, (13) visual impairment, and (14) developmental delay.

Students who have been diagnosed with a disability under IDEA in the United States make up thirteen percent of public school enrollment. Thurlow, Quenemoen, and Lazarus (2011) noted that most of these students could meet the same achievement standards as other students if given access to the same content as their typical peers and provided specially designed instruction, supports, and accommodations when needed. Over the years, there has been a marked increase in the amount of time that SWD spend in general education classrooms. This paradigm shift has necessitated discussions around the practice of inclusion in teacher preparation programs.?

Protagonists of inclusion contend that including SWDs with their typical peers is beneficial because it makes better use of instructional time, results in fewer student absences, leads to better post-secondary outcomes, encourages prosocial skills development, and differentiated instruction according to students' unique learning styles and needs. Additional benefits discussed in the literature are reduced stigma, effective use of resources (since in-classroom specialists can help all students), and high expectations for all students.?

The literature suggests that if correctly implemented, inclusion can be beneficial. Protagonists such as Francisco, Hartman, and Wang (2020) invoked Bell's Interest Convergence Theory (i.e., rights of the minority are advanced when they converge with the majority's interests) in concluding that inclusion is in the best interest of everyone involved regardless of their ability status. Important points of consideration include clearly articulated and measurable outcomes, specialized and individualized instruction, intentionality on the part of all service providers and education partners, monitoring, and accountability.??

Conversely, antagonists of inclusive practices have advanced the argument that inclusion might be inimical to knowledge dissemination and acquisition. The increasing trend of placing students with disabilities (SWDs) in general education classrooms has raised questions about classmate peer effects on all students. For example, cross-sectional results of a longitudinal survey on inclusive settings in early childhood education by Fletcher (2010) revealed that having a classmate with an emotional problem decreases reading and math scores at the end of kindergarten and first grade by over 10 percent of a standard deviation. Similarly, Gottfried (2014), who employed quasi-experimental methods to examine the peer effects of classmates with disabilities, reported that typical students in inclusive settings with more special needs peers have more externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems and lower frequencies of self-control, approaches to learning, and interpersonal skills.

Lubin and Fernal (2022) explored the perceptions of some general and special educators on barriers to inclusion. The perceptions of special and general educators emerged under six themes: (1) inadequate resources and time, (2) environmental and professional barriers, (3) lack of administrative support, ? (4) negative attitudes of stakeholders, (5) differing interpretations on inclusion, and (6) unsuitable curriculum and assessment.?

Stites, Rakes, Noggle, and Shah (2018) found that preservice teachers lacked a coherent understanding of inclusion and perceived themselves as needing additional development to be fully prepared to teach in an inclusive setting.?

Some Inclusion Strategies:

• Be intentional about aligning daily instruction with year-end goals. Teachers have to be clear (i.e., teacher clarity) about what they want students to learn and how learning will be assessed. Other considerations are remediation, intervention, and enrichment.?
• Provide students with multiple means of engagement (e.g., optimizing individual choice and autonomy, relevance and authenticity), multiple means of representation (e.g., offering several response-to-task alternatives), and various means of action and expression (e.g., optimization of access to tools and assistive technology).The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework, for example, is predicated on scientific insights into how humans learn. It is a tool for optimizing teaching and learning.
• Differentiate instruction to reach diverse learners. Students access information in different ways. Howard Gardner (2011) identified eight different types of intelligences: Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Spatial, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Naturalist. Gardner pointed out that the linguistic and logical-mathematical modalities are most valued in school and society.
• Structure routine classroom tasks to enable students to develop and sustain functional skills. For students with special needs, it is imperative for the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team to correctly identify the skills and supports needed for the student to derive the most educational benefit from a placement (The IEP is a legal document under United States law developed for each public school child who needs special education).
• Optimize and coordinate services by all providers. For example, teachers can adopt a collaborative approach to instruction in which two teachers, typically a general education teacher and a special education teacher, work together to plan and implement instruction.
• Implement personalized differentiation for students. Teachers can also get student input when establishing learning and behavioral expectations.
• Leverage learning with the use of assistive technology, accommodations, and modifications. Assistive technology is any item used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of persons with disabilities. Examples include special-purpose computers, prosthetics, mounting systems and positioning devices, electronic devices, wheelchairs, walkers, braces, educational software, power lifts, pencil holders, eye-gaze, and head trackers. Extended time on a task, preferential seating, and working with fewer items per page or line are examples of accommodations. Modifications involve task-level changes.

Conclusion

The default mindset is that inclusion only involves having special needs students in the same space as their typical peers. However, in a broader sense, inclusion provides diverse learners the opportunities and supports needed to thrive in a shared space or environment. A practical inclusion approach includes physical integration (i.e., placement in an inclusive setting) and social inclusion (i.e., social interaction, physical access, agency development, and equitable access to opportunities).?

?Education is a public good. Public education (education paid for by the public to educate the public) is necessary to create, maintain, and enhance a civil society. Inclusive education started as a philosophical declaration and has since morphed into an educational policy. It is imperative for education systems to mitigate, within reason, all the challenges and obstacles that students encounter in the quest to acquire knowledge with a view to maximizing their academic, social, emotional, and intellectual potential. The end goal of education is to produce lifelong learners, well-adjusted citizens, and productive members of society.

From a neoliberal education standpoint, competition leads to better schools. The presupposition is that all students, regardless of ability status, can start on an equitable footing and have their development compared with those of their peers. In reality, however, within a diverse school population, individuals with disabilities would need the right support services to be on an equitable footing with their typical peers. Inclusion is a work in progress, and the inclusion narrative has to be from an asset-based and child-centered standpoint. Additionally, school systems need to prioritize capacity building and repurposing around identified needs, especially as studies reveal that teachers lack proper skills and knowledge on adequate teaching methods to work with children with special needs.?

References

1. United Nations Children's Fund. Available online:?https://www.unicef.org/search? force=0&query=inclusion&created%5Bmin%5D=&created%5Bmax%5D= (Accessed on 1 May, 2022).

2. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004. Available online:?https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33. (Accessed on 5 May, 2022).

3. Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1999). Inclusive education: A requirement of a democratic society.?In Inclusive Education; Daniels, H., Garner, P., Jones, C., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire,?U.K., pp. 11–62.

4.? Samuels, C.A. (2017). Does inclusion slow down general education classrooms? Education?Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/does-inclusion-slow-down-general-education-classrooms/2017/11#:~:text=About%2079%20percent%20of%20teachers,lost%20teaching%20time%20to%20interruptions. (Accessed on 5 May, 2022).

5. UNESCO (1994). World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality,?Salamanca, Spain, 1994 .

6. ?National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. Available online:?https://www.acronymfinder.com/National-Center-on-Educational-Restructuring-and-Inclusion-(NCERI).html (Accessed on 5 May, 2022).

7. Francisco, M. P. B., Hartman, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Inclusion and special education.?Education Sciences, 10(9), 238.

8. Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R. F. & Lazarus, S. S. (2011). Meeting the Needs of Special?Education Students: Recommendations for the Race to the Top Consortia and States. National?Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).

9. Fletcher, J. (2010). Spillover Effects of Inclusion of Classmates with Emotional Problems on?Test Scores in Early Elementary School. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1),?69–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20685168.

10. Naser, Z., & Majlinda, G. (2020). Preschool teacher's awareness, attitudes and challenges?towards inclusive early childhood education: A qualitative study, Cogent Education, 7:1, DOI:?1080/2331186X.2020.1791560

11. Gottfried, M.A. (2014). Classmates with disabilities and students' noncognitive outcomes.?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Volume: 36 issue: 1, 20-43.

12. Lubin, J. & Fernal, F. S. (2022). Barriers to Inclusion: Insights of special and general educators?From the U.S. and St. Lucia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, v22 n2?p116-125.?

13. Stites, M. L., Rakes, C. R.; Noggle, A. K., & Shah, S. (2018). Preservice Teacher Perceptions of?Preparedness to Teach in Inclusive Settings as an Indicator of Teacher Preparation Program?Effectiveness. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, v9 n2 p21-39.

14. Gardner, H. E. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.

First published in the Pedagogical Dialogue. N 2 . 40 . 2022