Students with disabilities have historically faced disproportionate treatment within the public school classroom. Records of the necessity of inclusionary practices date back to the 1800’s. One such account from 1881 describes an Illinois principal concerned with the autocracy within his school district: students were forced to memorize information in order to maintain school pride instead of opting for paced instruction. It was not until the early 1900s when the first school of special education began in Providence, Rhode Island. By the late 1940s, parent and public outcry forced Congress to investigate the way in which students with disabilities were treated in school (Franklin, 1994).
The Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and 1960s proved to be the necessary starting point for advocates to begin a movement towards special education equality within the public school system. At the time of the Civil Rights Movement, many individuals were migrating to the United States. These individuals were looking for better living conditions as well as individual rights, as granted under the Constitution. In 1954 a monumental case was brought before the Superior Court of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education brought forth the constitutional necessity of equal protection for all Americans. This landmark case not only began the process to end racial segregation within schools, it allowed for equal opportunity for individuals with a disability (Yell, 2006).
The Civil Rights Movement brought forth representation for individuals with disabilities. However, it was not until 1975 when Senator Harrison Williams, of New Jersey, brought forth the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). President Gerald Ford signed EAHCA into law on November 29, 1975. EAHCA went into effect in 1977 mandating ‘free appropriate education which emphasized special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs ‘(Brown, 1980). EAHCA provided federal funding for schools electing programs for students with disabilities. EAHCA demanded students with disabilities be placed within the least restrictive environment. That is, students with disabilities must be allowed to be educated among their peers (Hill & Hill, 2012). One of the pivotal components of EAHCA was the Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The IEP guaranteed the students right to receive proper classroom placement. The IEP also develops appropriate goals for maintaining measurable data of a given students’ progress (Brown, 1980). However, the stipulations within EAHCA were vague which caused parent/ guardian stakeholder frustration. These stakeholders demanded better accountability for the continued lack of inclusion within public school classrooms.
In 1990, EAHCA was given its current title: Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA). The new act redefined the concept of least restrictive environment for all students to thrive therein. The statute required that students with disabilities receive the identical education as their peers. The statute also required students be given the necessary tools to accommodate their daily learning for success within their general education classroom (Hill & Hill, 2012). In 1997, President Clinton officially signed an amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Wherein the changes stipulated the following six individualized components.
The six major principles, as seen in the table above, provide the necessary framework which EAHCA lacked. The new standards are as follows:
1. Zero Reject encompasses the guidelines pertaining to age coverage, discipline, gap filling and cost shifting. The Zero Reject rule guarantees state funding to offer intervention programing for children from birth to age five. At the age of six, Zero Reject provides funding for the child once an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) has been created.
The IEP is an individualized plan which follows the child throughout their education until the age of twenty-one. The IEP is created by a team of special education specialists whom determine a student’s eligibility for special education services. These services are recorded and reviewed with the parent/ guardian and, once approved, become legally binding (Turnbull, Wilcox & Stowe, 2002). The IEP team is responsible for proper assessments which benefit the student. In an effort to control procedural errors that may occur, IDEA:
‘Specifically [IEP team] members must consider: (a) the strengths of the child; (b) the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; (c) the results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation of the child; and (d) the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child’ (Yell et. al., 2013).
Furthermore, the IEP program pertains to the needs of the student, not the student’s family. The discipline portion of Zero Reject pertains to the length of time a school can remove a student with a disability from their current classroom. The current mandate allows a school to remove the student for ten consecutive days. Any additional time must be addressed within a meeting with the following members present: teacher of record, administration representative, parent or guardian, psychologist and any additional support services necessary to address the child’s reason for being removed. If necessary, Zero Reject allows for a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) to be created as a means to implement additional services for the student with disabilities in order to continue providing the least restrictive environment possible. Additionally, Zero Reject provides Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBI) to include additional support for the building of social skills amongst the student’s peers. Furthermore, Zero Reject includes provisions for interagency transfer agreements to maintain student’s services no matter where the student goes to school. This gap-filling assures students with disabilities do not fall through the cracks. Lastly, Zero Reject grants cost shifting from Medicaid to cover medical care funding within the educational institution setting (Turnbull et. al., 2002).
2. Protection in Evaluation or Nondiscriminatory Evaluation (NDE) is the means by which an evaluation of the student can be obtained. And, if a disability is present, NDE determines if the student needs special education. The evaluations are conducted by the IEP team specialists located within the students school district. Parent/ guardians have the right to provide additional specialists at their out-of-pocket expense. NDE, by means of Zero Reject, grants the parent/ guardian the right to Due Process if they feel the school district has insufficiently evaluated their students. NDE does not specify the necessity of any particular specialist thus allowing the IEP team to determine the best option for the student. The NDE must be created before an IEP can be created. The NDE is the foundational building block for the student to be placed within the least restrictive environment (Turnbull et. al, 2002).
3. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) pertains to a student’s entitlement to an individualized education. There are two different means by which FAPE adheres to: process and benefit. The process simply refers to the steps within IDEA: NDE, least restrictive environment, IEP, and the due process rights of the parent/ guardian. The benefit portion of FAPE pertains to the 1982 Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Rowley. In the Rowley case, a student with a hearing impairment was denied the assistance of a sign language interpreter. The Supreme Court determined that the student was receiving appropriate access to education. Therefore, the parent/ guardian must provide any additional services not approved by the school district. Furthermore, the case provided stipulations for school districts to grant access to all stages of the IDEA process to parents/ guardians (Conroy, Yell, Katsiyannis & Collins, 2010). FAPE also grants school districts funding for improvement of services as well as professional training to maintain best practices (Turnbull et. al., 2002).
4. Least restrictive environment (LRE) provides placement of the student with disabilities within an optimal learning environment. That is, based upon the recommendations within the IEP, a student will be placed amongst their peers with the appropriate special education services provided for success (Hill & Hill). LRE requires assessments in order to remove a students from inclusionary services. LRE directly supports that students with disability are able to remain within the general education classroom. This inclusion allows the student to maintain active relationships amongst their peers as well as gleaning social skills. Furthermore, LRE acknowledges that if a student must be educated outside of the general education classroom, the student must still be granted access to their peers. This is imperative for students with social-emotional disabilities. (Yell, Rodgers & Lodge, 1998). Below is a graph of the optimal Least Restrictive Environment placement.
5. Procedural Safeguards address the parent/ guardian and student’s right to due process. If a parent/ guardian does not agree with the IEP results, they have the right to an appeal. The main goal of IDEA is fairness for the student in question. If a parent/ guardian feels the safety and wellbeing of their student is compromised, they can hold the school accountable for noncompliance. (Newcomer & Zirkel, 1999). There are many safeguards which a school district should follow in order to maintain compliance as well as parent/ guardian ratification. 1. A member of the IEP team should be in constant contact with the parent/ guardian in order to build a positive rapport. 2. Parent/ guardian information should be consistently updated. 3. Parent/ guardian concerns should be addressed as soon as possible. 4. Make the parent/ guardian an integral part of the process. During IEP, wait for parent/ guardian questions, do not rush meetings. (Wilson, Michaels & Margolis, 2005)
6. Parental Participation is the final component of IDEA. The reasoning behind parental participation pertains to accountability. Accountability by the IEP team as well as the parent/ guardian creates vested individuals in the life of the student with disabilities. When the parent/ guardian work in cohesion, a greater personal investment occurs
Special education inclusion benefits the student by allowing for peer-to-peer interactions at grade level. By creating an inclusive environment, students with disabilities glean necessary social, behavioral and life-long habits from their experiences within the general education classroom. While there are many social and behavioral theories, the focus of this paper will address Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory and Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory.
Psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s Theory of Social Development revolved around a central notion: human development is a lifelong process. Furthermore, Vygotsky determined that an individual’s lifelong journey through development is paved by social interactions. Therefore, Vygotsky claimed that cognitive development was based solely upon social development (Vygotsky, 1978a). Vygotsky broke down his theories into three subcategories: Social Interaction, The More Knowledgeable Other, and Zone of Proximal Development. Vygotsky’s conclusions are as follows:
1. Social Interaction pertains to the necessity of social inclusion in order for cognitive development to occur. ‘Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)’ (Vygotsky, 1978b). For students with disabilities, inclusion within a general education classroom would provide the necessary social interaction amongst their peers.
2. The More Knowledgeable Other (MKO), describes any individual with a greater understanding of the current information being learned. The MKO, most often viewed as an adult, can also be a peer or a technologically based program. In a general education setting, the MKO would be the Para-educator provided for the student with disabilities. The Para-educator would provide the necessary scaffolding necessary for the student to glean social and behavioral information (Vygotsky 1978a).
3. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) pertains to the area between a child’s intellectual development and potential development. Within ZPD a student with disabilities receives guidance in order to learn the necessary information needed to move to the next task (Rutland & Campbell, 1996). Vygotsky considered this to be ‘the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978b). Therefore, a child’s language acquisition and cognitive recognition relies on their proximity to knowledgeable individuals.
The second learning theorist is Psychologist Albert Bandura. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory rests on the foundation of effective peer modeling. Akin to Vygotsky, Bandura believed that social interactions increase a child’s ability to learn. However, Bandura focused primarily on behavioral development. Three prime modeling examples support Bandura’s theory: live, verbal interaction, and symbolic. Live modeling pertains to the demonstration of the desired behavior by a live person. Verbal interaction describes the necessity of the detailing of the desired behavior. Lastly, symbolic modeling is the usage of nonhuman sources such as computers and books (Zimmerman & Blotner, 1979). Bandura observed the following four conditions as necessary components for proper modeling:
Through the usage of aforementioned conditions, Bandura believed a child’s cognition relied on individualized modeling strategies. Teacher training of inclusionary practices is important because of the social and emotional role inclusion plays in a child’s cognitive development. General education teachers agree with the idea of inclusionary practices. However, teachers are already overwhelmed with the day-to-day requirements of the classroom. School district administrative services must be willing to provide the necessary time for teachers to be properly prepared (Vaughan & Henderson, 2016). While researching special education inclusionary practices, two main themes emerged: Creating optimal learning environments teacher collaboration.
1. Creating an optimal learning environment promotes health and safety for all students within a given general education classroom. Students need to feel safe in order to excel. For students with disabilities, teachers must possess knowledge in safety procedures. Teachers must also receive training on the different types of disabilities as well as how to best individualize instruction for the student. Teachers must be willing to set aside their current beliefs and practices in order to help the student with disabilities succeed (Hamill & Dever, 1988). Unfortunatly, due to budgetary purposes, districts do not provide enough training for teachers. The lack of teacher training leaves a gap that, for a student with disabilities, is difficult to close (Dias, 2015).
2. Collaboration is one of the most important resource toll a teacher can use. Teachers have the ability to discuss ways in which they have overcome hurdles within their classroom. For special education teachers collaboration is especially helpful due to the vast amount of paperwork required for each student within their program. It is imperative that special education teachers remain in constant contact with the general education teacher in order to maintain the least restrictive environment for the student with disabilities (Jones, 2012).
Teaching is a multidimensional process in which an individual is given the opportunity to assist students in their furtherance of knowledge. It is imperative that teachers receive the necessary training in order for students to excel. Furthermore, school districts must be willing to provide the funding for the training of teachers in inclusionary practices (Hollins, 2011). Students with disabilities deserve the right by law to the least restrictive environment. With the assistance of the IEP team, teachers will not only gain valuable information regarding their students, they will be given the tools to help students with disabilities thrive within the general education classroom. The benefits of the aforementioned practices will affect the entire school community in a positive way resulting in a schoolwide pedagogy of inclusion.