ERIC ED385042: The Evaluation of Inclusive Education Programs.

9 Pages·1995·0.31 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EC 304 075
ED 385 042
Lipsky, Dorothy Kerzner; Gartner, Alan
AUTHOR
The Evaluation of Inclusive Education Programs.
TITLE
City Univ. of New York, NY. National Center on
INSTITUTION
Educational Restructuring and Inclusion.
95
PUB DATE
9p.
NOTE
Information
Serials (022)
Collected Works
PUB TYPE
Analyses (070)
NCERI Bulletin; v2 n2 Spr 1995
JOURNAL CIT
MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Academic Achievement; *Disabilities; Educational
DESCRIPTORS
Improvement; Educational Research; Elementary
Secondary Education; *Inclusive Schools;
Mainstreaming; *Outcomes of Education; *Program
Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; School
Effectiveness; Social Integration; Special Education;
Student Behavior
ABSTRACT
This bulletin summarizes research on the benefits of
inclusive education programs; provides data on the current status
of
individual inclusion
special education; and considers studies of
studies, and the effects of inclusion on
programs, state and district
evaluation data on
students without disabilities. The research and
inclusion indicate a strong trend toward improved student outcomes
education and
(academic, behavior, and social) for both special
drive for
general education students. It is suggested that the
these
upgrading standards and the inclusion of all students in
point of congruence
reforms has created tension for educators. A
promoting
between the school effectiveness efforts and those
restructured
inclusion is that a new approach must become part of a
restructuring
educational system. Districts conducting successful
have identified the following key
programs that include all students
of
factors: visionary leadership; collaboration; refocused use
funding that is
assessment; supports for staff and students;
and family
sufficient and "follows the student," and effective parent
involvement. (Contains 57 references.)
(SW)
***********************************************************************
made
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be
from the original document.
********************************************************************
Volume 2 Number 2 Spring 1995
I
I
I
imi/111
The Graduate School
and University Center
The City University
of New York
Limited community integration of adults with disabili-
ties:
THE EVALUATION OF
Differential certification. categorization. and placement
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
of racial and language minority students.
(Lipsky & Gartner. 1989. 1991a & b. 1994. !.n press)
PROGRAMS
Evaluation of Inclusion Programs
Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky and Alan Gartner
Given the limited time period in which inclusive educa-
tion programs have been implemented, there have been few
As inclusive education programs have grown across the
full-scale evaluations of outcomes. In a report for the Presi-
country, both supporters and opponents have sought infor-
dent's Committee on Mental Retardation, Nisbet (1994)
mation concerning their effectiveness. The National Center
states, "Inclusion research published to date commonly takes
noted
on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI)
U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
the form of ethnographic studies, narratives, case studies.
in 1994 that. "Comprehensive program evaluations are lim-
Othce of Eaucalioni Research and improvement
anecdotes, and surveys, although the range is rapidly
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
ited" (National study of inclusive education, p. 27). Increas-
CENTER (ERIC)
expanding and new studies are published every month" (P.
ingly, however. states. school districts, and educational
This document hes been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
152).
researchers are evaluating inclusive education programs,
ongrnahrig
Based upon a comprehensive survey of the literature, a
7." Malty changes have been made to improve
and, along with those concerned with educational policy,
ieproduction Duality
recent report stated:
are asking critical questions as to the benefits of inclusion.
echnIS of verr or oprhons staled .n ins clOCu.
While there is currently little quantitative data of statisti-
This NCERI Bulletin highlights and summarizes some of
meni do not necessarily represent of ficiat
iDERI position or pOliCy
cal significance to support full inclusion, there are clear pat-
the research data describing these benefits. It does not focus
terns among the research that indicate improved outcomes
upon consequences for particular groups of students with
as a result of integrated placements. These improved out-
disabilities. particularly the low-incidence conditions. nor is
comes are even more noticeable in the qualitative data that
it meant to he exhaustive. (For the views of opponents of
-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
exists in human services research. (Fial report, 1993, p. 5)
inclusion, see Fuchs and Fuchs. 1994. and Kauffman, 1994.)
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
The findings from three meta-an ilyses concerning the
This report does address the following: the current state of
p5
most effective setting for the education of students with dis-
IL .
special education, studies of individual inclusion programs.
abilities are summarized by Baker. Wang, and Walberg
statewide studies, reports on the effects upon nondisabled
(1994).
students, and district studies.
These meta-analyses generate a common measure. called
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
effect size...that compared the effects of inclusive versus non-
The Current State of Special Education
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-
inclusive educational practices for special-needs students.
The current state of special education is characterized by:
The effect sizes demonstrate a small-to-moderate beneficial
High drop out rates. e.g., nationally, some one-quarter
effect of inclusive education on the academic and social out-
of the students who exited school in the 1990-91 school year
comes of special-needs students...which means that special-
dropped out. Phis in addition to the nearly one-fifth of
needs students educmed in regular classes do better
school exiters for whom there are no data, a high propor-
academically and soci2f.ly than comparable otudents in non-
tion of whom are likely to have dropped out:
inclusive settings. (P..34)
Low graduation rates. e.g., only 43.9 percent of stu-
The research literature in three areas of inclusion (e.g..
dents with disabilities leave school with a regular diploma:
students with mild or high incidence impairments. students
Special education graduates go on to post-secondary
with moderate and severe impairments. and preschool stu-
education at less than hall' the rate of general education
dents) are summarized below:
graduates:
I. Integration/Inclusion of' students with mild impair-
Persons with disabilities have the highest unemploy-
ments or students in high incidence categories of impairment
ment rate of any population subgroup. Two-thirds of per-
in general education settings
2
sons with disabilities are not working;
press). Nisbet says the following conclusions can be drawn:
When comparing student achievement in integrated ver-
First, it is clear that integration has positive effects on
differences
sus resource programs. only slight measurable
the social competence and interactions of p:eschoolers with
model results were
were discerned. However, the integrated
d.sabillties. Findings include more time playing with peers.
&
more favorable and cost effective (Week. Madge. Adams.
and more verbaliza-
more positive interactions with peers.
Lowenbraun. 1988).
tions with peers.
While students with mild disabilities included full time
Second, integration opportunities also appear to have
in a regular class progressed more slowly than their peers,
positive effects on other behavioral outcomes, such as more
the gap was not w;dening as rapidly as that between stu-
sophisticated play with toys.
dents in pullout programs and their typical peers (Deno. et
Third, integrated and segregated settings seem to be
al.. 1990).
equal in terms of measured developmental progress on stan-
Students with disabilities were as likely to engage in
dardized tests; thus. any arpment that segregated settings
positke social interactions with peers as were students who
might provide more specialized and more effective interven-
did not have disabilities (Ray, 1985).
tions are not valid.
A full-time approach exceeds the resource room
Fourth. no negative outcomes have been reported for
approach for attaining desirable classroom processes. stu-
normally developing children. (P. 153)
dent attitudes, and student basic skills (Wang & Birch,
1984). This was confirmed by statistical tendencies that sug-
gested full-time mainstream placement is more beneficial for
Statewide and Other Research Studies
Currently, a number of statewide studies are underway,
students with moderate disabilities (Wang. Peverly, & Ran-
including in Massachusetts (Rossman & Anthony, 1992),
dolph. 1984).
Michigan (Christmas. 1992). Oregon (Arrick er al., ND),
2. Integration/Inclusion of students with moderate and
Utah (McDonnell. McDonnell, Hardman. and McCune.
severe impairments in general educations settings
1991), and Vermont (Hasazi, Furney. and Johnstone, 1994).
There was no evidence of harmful effects on students
A multi-year study of the implementation of inclusion in
who did not have disabilities. and their attitudes, values,
Vermont ( Vermont's Act 230, 1993), reports:
and beliefs, as well as those of others in the setting. were
Grades for students served in general education settings
favorably affected (York. Vandercook, MacDonald, Heise-
Gay-
had been
were not significantly different than their grades
Neff. & Caughey, 1992: Haring. Breen, Pitts-Conway,
lord -Ross. & Gaylord-Ross. 1987; Biklen. Corrigan. &
when in special education classes;
General education teachers, special educators, parents,
Quick. 1989: Murray-Seegert, 1989).
and the students themselves judged special education stu-
Findings of improved outcomes were confirmed by par-
effect of
dents to have comparable performance in the general educa-
ents who reported their perceptions regarding the
tion class settings in all of the categories measured:
general education classroom placement of students with
have disabil-
behavior, social interaction, classroom performance. and
severe disabilities on their children who did not
overall success. For example, 92% of the general education
ities (Giangreco. Edelman. Cloniger, & Dennis. 1992).
teachers, 95% of the special educators. 91% of the parents.
3. Integration/Inclusion of preschool students in inte-
and 94% of the students responded aflirmativel) to the ques-
grated settings
tion. "Overall, do you feel the student was successful in
Integration/Inclusion results in positive gains in atti-
tude toward peers with disabilities. and these gains are
school?"
Other research reports. including Rossman and Salzman
maintained over a long period of time (Esposito & Reed,
(1993), present the following findings:
1986).
Students with learning disabilities made academic gains
The critical component in integration/inclusion is not
and report
as reflected in scores on criterion-referenced tests
the simple presence in the class of children who do not have
disabilities. but the was I.) which interactions among chil-
cards (Chase & Pope, 1993):
Using the Metropolitan Achievement Test to make com-
dren are systematicall!, guided and encouraged (Schnorr.
parisons between students with learning disabilities in two
1990).
demographically similar schools. Jenkins et al. (1992) found
Preschoolers with severe mental impairment exhibit
that the students in the school serving tiles° students in the
lower rates of inappropria'e play in integrated settings in
(Gural-
regular classroom had significantly higher overall average
comparison to their behavior in segregated settings
gains than did those students served in the control school
nick. 1981).
Placement of students who do not have disabilities in
using a pullout resource room model;
Students with significant disabilities had greater success
integrated special education classes where the majority of
interfere with nor-
in achieving IEP goals than did matched students in tradi-
peers had disabilities did not appear to
tional programs (Ferguson, 1992);
mal development (Odom, Deklyen. & Jenkins, 1984).
Benefits to students with disabilities occurred without
Both parents and teachers of children who were devel-
curtailing the educational program available to nondisabled
oping in typical fashion perceived important benefits accru-
ing to the children as a result of the involvement in
students (Co-teaching, 1991);
Gains occurred in student self-esteem (Burello &
integrated placements (Peck. Carlson. & Helmstetter. 1992).
Wright, 1993). acceptance by classmates (Harwell, 1990:
Nisbet (1994) points out that, "lolver the past 25 years.
Christmas. 1992), and social skills (McDonnell. McDonnell.
there has been an extensive body of research on preschool
integration" (P. 153). Citing recent summaries of this
Hardman, & McCune. 1991);
Inclusive programs provide positive experiences and
research by Buysse and Bailey (1993) and Peck et al. (In
3,
nondisabled v.udents do not acquire undesirable or mai-
improved attitudes upon the part of the children (Gian-
adaptive behavior from peers with disabilities.
Raiaforth, 1992; Stain-
greco, 1992; Phillips et al..
In reporting the potential benefits of inclusion for nondis-
hack et al.. 1992; York, et al.. 1992);
abled students, they identify five positive themes from the
Several studies report more behavioral progress.
available research:
increased social competence. and few academic increases
I. Reduced fear of human differences accompanied by
(Cole & Meyer. 1990. Saint-Laaurent & Lessard. 19911;
increased comfort and awareness;
Supports from parents of students with disabilities was
2. Growth in social cognition:
found to be positive (Chase & Pope. 1993: Co-teaching.
3..lmprovements in self-concept;
1991: Harwell. 1990):
4. Development of personal principles; and
Supports from students, both general and special educa-
5. Warm and caring friendships. (Pp. 37,l11)
Co-teach-
tion. was generally positive (Chase & Pope. 1993:
A special issue of The Journal of The Association for Per-
& Anthony.
ing, 1991). although not uniform (Rossman
sons with Severe Handicaps addresses the effects of the inclu-
1992); and
sion of students with severe disabilities in general education
ranged from vi ry enthusi-
- Among school staff. support
classrooms and schools upon their peers who do not have
astic (Burello & Wright. 1993: Co-teaching. 1991) to more
disabilities and the general education community. Authors
moderate support ( Rossman & Anthony. 1992; Chase &
were invited to use a ,ariety of research methodologies
Pope. 1993: Christmas. 199.:. McDonnell, McDonnell.
including quantitatke. qualitative, and critical theory
Hardman. & McCune. 19911.
approaches (Meyer. 1994, 251).
Helmstetter. Peck. and Giangreco (1994) analyzed a
Effects Upon Non-Disabled Students
statewide surrey of high school students and reported that
Staub and Peck (1994) addressed outcomes for nondis-
more positke outcomes were associated with more contact
abled students in inclusive classes. They define inclusion as
and more substantive interaction (e.g., increased responsise-
the lull -time placement of children with mild, moderate, or
ness to the needs of others. saluing relationships with people
that
severe disabilities in regular classrooms. They note
with disabilities. personal development, increased tolerance
"kilns definition explicitly assumes that regular class place-
of other people. development of personal values. increased
chil-
ment must be considered as a relesant option for all
appreciation of human diversity, and positive changes in
dren. regardless of the severity of their disabilities-
social status with peers):
(Emphasis in the original. P. 36). In considering outcomes
Kishi and Meyer (1994) reported on a six-year follow
for nondisabled students, they address what are identified as
up of an elementary school program of social interaction
three common fears:
with students with severe disabilities. They found signifi-
(('ill inclusion reduce the academic pmgress of nondis-
I.
cantly more positive attitudes, higher levels of current
abled children? They report on the few studies which have
reported social contact, and more support for full commu-
used quasi-experimental designs to compare the progress of
nity participation as a function of the earlier social contact;
nondisabled students in inclusive classrooms to that of
and
matched children enrolled in classrooms that do not include
Hunt et al. (19941 studied the achievement of students
children with disabilities. "These studies have consistently
in cooperative learning groups. They reported that the stu-
found no deceleration of academic progress for nondisabled
dents with severe disabilities both independently demon-
children in inclusive classrooms- (P. 36). They report that.
strated targeted basic skills and generalized them. Members
"Surveys conducted with parents and teachers who have
of the group without disabilities performed as well on tar-
been directly involved in inclusive settings generally show
geted academic objectives as members of a control group
that both parties have positive stews ahout inclusive pro-
within the classroom that did not include a child with severe
grams and do not report any harm to the developmental
disabilities.
progress of nondisabled children" (P. 36).
2. Will nondisabled children lose leacher time and atten-
District Studies
tion? Reporting on the one study which has investigated this
Increasingly, a number of school districts with inclusive
topic in depth, they summarize its findings as follows: "the
education programs are conducting evaluation studies.
effect on
presence of students with severe disabilities had no
Reported here are details from a few of these studies.
levels of allocated or engaged time. Further, time lost to
excerpted from NCERI's National study of inclusive educa-
interruptions of instruction was not significantly different in
rim (In press). The districts' self-reported information focus
inclusive and noninclusise classrooms- (P. 36). They state:
on issues of implementation and student outcomes.
"These findings are supported by survey responses from
California:
teachers and parents who have direct experience with inclu-
At the Fort Bragg Unified School District (CA) inclusive
sive classrooms" (P.37). Reporting on high school students
education takes place at two elementary schools, the middle
who had been involved in inclusive classrooms in rural, sub-
school, and the high school. They report:
urban, and urban areas of Washington. they state: "These
Multiple examples of positive changes in student behavior
students did not believe that their participation in inclusive
have
are evident across the grade levels. Academic changes
classrooms had caused them to miss out on other valuable
been verified by standardized test scores. authentic assess-
educational experiences" (P. 37).
ment, and plain old observation. Social changes are evident
3. Will nondi.sabied students learn undesirable behaviors
popula-
as well, importantly within the general education
from students with disabilities? Citing the limited research on
tion, as well as the inclusion students and their families.
this topic, they report that the evidence indicates that
First. we hate undertaken a change in tile tsar 11-P goal
Simply put. regular education students haze become human-
and ()Mentes are written. All special educators hate beer
I
17ed. and special education students hate the opportunity to
trained m this nets approach. which is more child-centered.
become known as mdit iduals with their oar; personalities.
measurable and haled on ilemonstrated need. rather than
At the Napa Valley Unified School District i( AI elemen-
curricular orientated. This coupled with portfolio assess-
tary and middle schools are implementing inciusite educa-
which to me;,-
ment should help establish baseline data from
tion programs. 1 hey report:
;0:l be a mote to explore
sure outcomes. In addition. there
Significant changes. both socially and educationally. hate
data collection on actual classroom bei; A./tors ...
been obserted and documented for the full: included stu-
'a pilot r. ogram sponsored M.
[his county also is part
dents. Changes ranging iron; increased independence and
the State of Maryland to assess students who are not part o!
self-esteem to domed reading kw's hate been noted. Many
the stateside assessment program already ni place. this
of these outcomes are esaluated through teacherrparenusto-
form of assessment will invoke data collection and behaviors
dent observations and interviews as well as standardped
demonstration through video.
testing and authentic assessment. Changes in the attitudes
The Anne Arundel County Public Schools sere soma
and sell-esteem have been noted in the students without
68.000 students with 113 schools. As part of the state St-
noticeable disabilities. The Full Inclusion Program was a
take place in set
tents Change Project. inclusion initiatives
major reason Cameros Elementary School was named a Cal-
erah of the district's feeder systems. Cooperative teaching is
ifornia Distinguishes School in 1993.
used extensisely. They report:
Florida
A study comparing the academic performance of 9th
all of the
aunty School District ii-1
At the Bretard
I
grade students co- taught in general education classroom-
students are ,erred in the neighborhood schools. 1 hey
Ith similar classrooms without co-teaching compared per-
report:
tormance on the state', ninth grade minimum competene:
11c hate seen a lot 01 caring and acceptance from the reg-
tests and classroom grades. 'Students in the co- taught classes
ular education students toward our more challenged stu-
and the comparison classes had similar academic profiles and
dents. 'Ihey are ter:. protecot e and understanding of mem
backgrounds] Results found that the co- taught classes. sigh
The special needs student; are grossing tremendously. There
\sorking collabora-
a general educator and special educator
are I' \111 students that are excited by learning the parents
tpely with a heterogeneous group of special and genera!
of our I towns students and autism: students report a tremen-
education students can produce significantly better results
dou, growth In tocabulary and communication. Students
than general education classrooms in achieving academic
self-contained ,erring and exhibited a lot of
. came from a
In particular. a
requirements for Itch school graduatim
relaxed
anxiety about the regular classroom appear to tie
significantly greater percent of ninth grade students from
and comlortable with their new placement.
co-taught classes passed statewide minimum competency
Georgia
tests in three dillerent content areas than students from con-
ou, n Public Schools inclusion pro-
In the (imnnett
tent classes tshich did not include special education student,
grams operate at lour elementary schools and a middle
and were not co-taught by a general educator and a special
school. 1 hes report.
educator. 1 he findings suggest that the combined Meet 01
Student outcomes for students with disabilities hate beer.
and cut-
ttt o teachers' capabilities. one strong in content
outstanding. All students are exceeding lFP object' \ es me;
rieuium kinmiedge. the other in adaptit e teaching strategic,
progre in sell-contained classes: parents report increased
and classroom modifications. can in tact enable the genera'
generahmtion of learning at home: school stall eonsistend
classroom to successfully address the learning needs
report positbe enanges in student, once they are included .
diterse group of students. including mainstream special edu-
students with disabilities resist going back to their sell-con-
all stu-
cation students. Moreover. the results suggest that
handi-
tained classmate, and participating with them in
dent, within a co-taught class benefit from this sersitv
capped onl. acitsoics 11c hate noted that students lean.
defter model and that school improN einem plans should
well when taught ht regular educatom ,tall. special eduk.,
consider such collaboratiNe models in deeloping educauoi
lion suit. and peer.
reform mum es for all students.
Indiana
Michigan
ommunit) Schools. vinere all stu-
In the Lawrenceburg
1 he Htfkdale ( (immunity Schools educate almost all ,a
dent\ are \cried in the elcmentan school. thet report
the skillet's students. k-s. in age-appropriate regular edu-
For non-handi-
fiances in students hate been two -fold
Chapter I. local Gifted
cation classrooms with support from
capped students. thei, hate conic to be more aware of boil:
..wt report
and talented. and Special Lducation
the strengths and weaknesses 01 their handicapped peers
Parental int olsement has heel) both pocuit e and suppor-
i or handicapped
that are less prejudicial and hateful
V.a
Hants (if handicapped students hate ttelcomed
ts,:
youngsters. the main change is connected to their increase.:
to see their children educated with their ae;
opportunit \
,
let el ol expectations as to both academics and behaior
nonhandieapped
mate, of non-oclusis e setting,. Parents of
etaluated these outcomes through a climate audit study con-
achievement results that wet.'
sere cautious until they ,,a1.1
ducted fis an independent croup Irom Indiana l msersos
frientli; and
not depressed and a social milieu that was
Mart land
( omen
Ida \ed. Students hate been our biggest surprise
mints Public Schools is exploring ways to
1 he Hostard
'tonal tt 'scion' held that children were cruel to ime :mottle:
standard
et aluate outcomes ior these students other than the
and the handicapped would lace ridicule aim scorn \ otnim:
I' obieclitt
classroom grades and acnietement tottaid II
could he further Irons the truth (Mr experience has nee:
I net renor
new approach must become part of a restructured educa-
that the children have been kind, supportive and protective
tional system.
of their handicapped classmates. Often the adults who have
Districts conducting successful restructuring programs
been involved have learned kindness and tolerance from
that include all students have identified the following key
observing the children in Their care Of all the surprises we
factors:
have found with this project. none has been as dramaticas
visionary leadership:
this one.
collaboration:
Texas
refocused use of assessment:
The Mansfield Independent School District is one of three
supports for staff and students:
districts that received in 1992 a grant from the state's Coun-
funding. that both is sufficient and "follows the stu-
cil for Developmental Disabilities to implement inclusive
dent"; and
education.
effective parent and family ins olvement (National study
In 1994. the state expanded the program evaluation to
inclusive education, 1994).
include review of student records, parent surveys, general
and special education teacher and principal surveys, and
classroom observations. Conducted by an outside evaluation
References
Affleck, J.Q.. Madge. S.. Adams. A . & Loxenbraun. S. (1988).
consultant ( Hess. 1994). the study reported:
Integrated classroom resource model: Academic viability
At all grade levels. 94 percent of the students with dis-
and effectiveness. EL'eptional Children. 54 (4), 339-348.
abilities were educated on their home campus; of these 96
Arrick, J.. Krug, D.. Falco. R.. Jackson. P., Anderson. N.. &
54
percent were on general education classtoom rosters; and
Brazeau. K. (N.D.). Supported education in Oregon sum-
of
percent of students with disabilities receive 100 percent
mary of fim!ings: Elementary school report. Portland.
their instruction in general education classes. On a 5-point
OR: Portland State Crusersity.
scale. 76 percent of the general education teachers responded
Baker F.T.. Wang. M.C., & Walberg. H.J. (1994). The effects
4.0 or above that students enrolled in subject area classes are
of inclusion on learning. Educoiional Leadership. 52 (4),
engaged in !EP-specified learning activities with classroom
33-15.
adaptations and supports. En terms of assistance to teachers.
Biklei D.. Corrigan. C.. & Quick. D. (1989). Beyond obliga-
in tol-
at 100 percent of the campuses training was provided
tion: Students' relations with each other in integrated
of the cam-
erance and respect for differences; at 100 percent
dazes. In D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.). Beyond
puses principals reported that staff
development
separate education: Quality education kr all. (Pp. 207-
opportunities concerning inclusion were provided to all
221). B41timore. MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
teaching personnel. Districtwide, 67 percent of the teachers
Burello. L.C. & Wright. P.
(Eds.). (Winter. 1993). Strategies
reported that they used pea tutors a minimum of twc, times
for inclusion of behaviorally challenged students. The'
that they fie
a week: 76 peicent of the teachers reported Principal Lvers,
D.B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental
quently used peer tutors and incorporated student coopera-
Buysse B.
tive learning activities in their classroom: 94 percept
outcomes in young children ss,th disabilities in inte-
grated aid segregated settings: A review of comparative
reported no negative impact on the academic grades of stu-
studies. Journal of Special Education, 26. 434-461.
dents without disabilities. In terms of parental attitudes. 92
Christmas. U.L. (1992). The 1992 Michigan non-mandated aide
reported
percent of the parents of general education students
pilot project. Lansing: Michigan State Department of
that they felt their child henefitted from more contact with
Education.
students with disabilities.
Cole, D.A. & Meyer. L.H. (1991). Social integration and severe
disabilities: .A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes.
Conclusion
The Journal of Special Education, 25, 3. 340-351.
The research and evaluation data on inclusion indicate a
Co-teachmg: Regular educationlspecial education and co -tea; ping
strong trend toward improved student outcomes (academi-
reference, guide. (19911. Lansing: Michigan State
cally, behaviorally, and socially) for both special education
Department of Education.
and general education students. A recent report on inte-
Deno. S.. NIurayama. G., Espin. C. & Cohen. C. (1990). Edu-
cating students with mild disabilities in general educa-
grated placements for general and special education students
tion classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional
notes:
Children. 57, 1 150-161.
When one contrasts such indications with the fact that
Esposito. B. & Reed. T. (1986). The effects of contact with
there appears to he little, if any, evidence in research to sup-
handicapped persons on young children's attitudes.
placement in
port superior student outcomes as a result of
Exceptional Children. 53 (3).2_24-229.
segregated settings, one must seriously question the efficacy
Ferguson. D.L. (1992). Regular ( lass Participation SyNtem
of spending ever-increasing sums of money to maintain dual
(RCN): A final report. Eugene: University of Oregon.
systems (Final report, 1993. pp. 5.0.
Final report of the inclusive Education Recommendation Commit-
The drive for upgrading standards and the inclusion of all
tee: Findings and recommendations (1993). Lansing.
students in these reforms has created tension for educators.
MI: Department of Education.
Educational reform efforts. such as those developed by James
Fuchs. D. S: Fuchs. L.S. (19944 Inclusive schools movement
Corner. Henry Levin. Ted Sizer. and Robert Slav in. indicate.
and the radicalization of special education reform.
the possibility of
as Edmonds put it more than a decade ago.
Exceptional Children. 60, 4. 294-309.
raising the "floor" and thus narrowing the gap for everyone
Gartner. A. & Lipsky. D.K. (1989). The rake of special educa-
(Edmonds. 1979). A point of congruence between the school
non: How to break it. Rochester. NY: National Center
effectiveness efforts and those promoting inclusion is that a
6
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
restructuring. and the remaking of American societs
on Education and the Economs
Mansell. B.F. (19901. Intaration of students ilith mental ram
Giangreco. M.. Dennis. R.. ( Irminger. C.. Edelman. S. S:
dation. Madison. WI: Madison Public Schools.
Schattman. R. 91993). Fie counted Jon: transforma-
McDonnell. A.. McDonnell. J.. Hardman. M.. & Mc( one. G
tional experiences of teachers educating students with
(1991). Educating students ssith sesere disabilities in
disabilities. Exceptiona! Children. 59.4. 359-3-'2
their neighborhood schoo). The l tah elementary model.
Giangreco. M.E.. Edelman. S.. Cloniger. C.. & Dennis. R.
I 210). 34-45.
Remedial and Special Education
(19921. Ms :held has a classmate is ith severe dis- ''ilities:
Meyer. L.P. (1994). Editor's introduction: I nderstanding the
What parents of a nondisabled children think about lull
impact of inclusion. Journal of the .1 scorn/rim for Per-
inclusion. Derelopmenta/ Disabilities Bulletin. 20 (2). I-
sons with Sever. Hand:two. 19 (4). 251-252
I:.
Murray-Seegert. C. ( 1989). .\ ash girls. times, and humans )11,i
Guralnick. \I. (1981). The social hehas tor of preschool chil-
us: Social relations between severell disabled and nondis
dren at dillerent des elopmental les els: Effects of group
ahled students in high school. Baltimore. MD: Paul H.
ion. Journal of Experimental Child PArchologv.
comp"
Brookes Publishing Co.
.15-130
31 (1
.atonal study of inclusive education. (19941. Ness York:
Breen. C.. Pitts -( onwas. \
Gaylord -Ross.
Haring. T
National Center ch Educational Restructuring and
M.L.. & Gaylord -Ross. R. (1987). Adolescent peer
inclusion.
tutoring and special friend experiences. Journal of thi
\atmal study of inclusive education. 2nd ed. (In press). Ness
Association for Persons with Severe Hantheaps, 12 (4).
York: National ( enter on Educational Restructuring
280-286
and Inclusion.
fiasaLi. S.. Furnes. K.S.. & Johnstone. A.P. (19941..A study of
Nisbet. J. (1994). Education reform: Sommars and recommen-
the implementation of \ ermont's Act 230. t npub. mss.
dations. The national reform aeenda and people with
Burlington. VT: L mversits of \ ermont.
mental retardation: Putting people first. (Pp. 151-165)
Helmstet ter. E.. Peck. ( .1.. & Giangreco. M.F. (19941. Out-
11 ashmgton. D.C. LS. Department of Health and
comes of interactions is ith peers is uh moder;(0, or seserr
Human Services
disabilities' A stateside curses of high school students.
Odom. S.. Deklven. M.. & Jenkins. J. t 19841. Integrating noil-
The Journal of the ..tswciation for Persons with Sever(
handicapped preschoolers: Des elopmental impact on
Handicaps, 19 (4). 263-276.
nonhandicapped children. Evecpnonal Children. 51 II ).
4 guide to
4ll eta/mit:on of inclusive education
!less. C. (1994)
41-48.
future program improi einem (moils. Spring. 1 N: Stetson
Peck. C.. Carlson. P.. & Helmsletter. L. (1992). Parent and
and Associates.
teacher perceptions of outcomes for typically deseloping
Hunt. P., l-arron-Das is. F.. Beckstead. S.. Curtis. D. & Goetz.
children enrolled in integrated earls childhood pro-
L 11994) E s aluating the Meets of plai.ment on stu-
grams: A states,. ide sun es. Journal of Early Mien-mum.
dents ssith ssere disabilities in general education sersus
16 (1). 53-63.
special classes. The Journal of the Assoctation for Persons
Peck. C.A.. Odom. S.L.. & Bricker. D D. (In press). Integrating
191:- I. 200-214.
with Severe Hanifii.tp%
young children is ith disabilities into communits pro-
flu . P.. Staub. D.. Ala ell. 11. & Goetz. F. (1994). Achiese-
grams. Baltimore. MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing (
ment bi all students ss idol) the context of cooperatisc
RamlortIL B. (1092). The effects of lull inclusion of regul.ir
I sir, Jarmo for P,
J. urnai
learmag groms. 1
I he
education teachers. San Francisco: ( ah)orma Research
ere flananaps. 19.4. 290-301
sons
Institute.
Naathnan..1.11 (1904) Host ac might achiese the radical
Ras. B \I. 11985i. Measuring the social oo.oiloo of the null:,
( lui,i,rn 0u,
t spcsiat eduation
reiorm ,
streamed handicapped child.
si criminal
0 -it-
(4). 57-02.
1 19941. 11 hat children report and
S & \lescr:. L.11
Rossman. G.B. & Anthony. P.G. (19921. Restructuring iron
remember: A +n -sear folloss-up of the Meets of social
within: The Massachusetts experiment with integrating
contact boss een peers ssith and is ohout sesere disabili-
all students in the classroom l npub. mss. Amherst
jiff' Journal of it ;,' 1ssoi laifoo fur Permits with
ties
I !menus of Massachusetts
.Nett ft Handl. al's. 19. 4. 2-7-2so
Rossman. (i.B. & Salzman, J. 1 1994i. I:saluting inclusise edu-
I !risks. D.K. & Gartner. A. (1959). Bel and siparine education
cation programs: A sun es of current practice. A paper
Qualm education for all Baltimore. Nil)' Paul II
prepared for the NCERI National insitational canto
Brookes Publishing ( o.
ence on inclusise education. \1 ingspread ( omerence
& Gartner. A (1991a). Ac Des log lull inclusion
Lipsky.
( enter ( \VII. April 28 -Max I
Placing the student at the center of educational reform
Saint-Laurent. L. & Lessard. J.C. (19911. ( omparison of thres
In \V Stainhack and S. Stainhack (Eds.). ( oniroversial
educational programs for students ssith moderate men-
issues iontronting special eduidlion DtteNcnt perspi
tal retardation integrated in regular schools 'Mummy
toes. (Pp. 3-12). Boston: Allsn and Bacon
and I ranting of the Mental!' Retarded. 20. 4. 370-380
Lipsky. D.K. & Gartner. A. (1991h) Restructuring lor (main)
Schnorr. R.F. (1990). Peter? He comes and he goes. First
(Eds).
. Repp
In J \V. Llosd. N N. Singh. &
graders perspectises on a part-time mainstream stu-
Regular Education Innttmnr Altername perspectives on
dent The Journal of the Ascociation for Persons with
concepts, issues, and models (Pp. 43-561. Sycamore. II
Set ere Handicaps. 15 (4). 231-210
Sycamore Publishing ( ompans
Staub. D. & Peck. C.A. (1994). What are the outcomes for
119941. Special education. Double
Lipsky. D.K. & Gartner. A
nondisahlcd students? Educational Leadership. 52 (41.
_leopards (or minonts and poor south. \ CEP/ Bulletin.
2.
I
(1994
Peck. (
1.S.. ()antic!. (
. &
Stash.
-4
13)0..S(c)hssarti.
I ipsks. D.K & Gartner. A
i In nressi. Inclusion. school
Four portraits of 1. iendship at an inclusive school. I he
Journal of the 1suloarion for Pervinv with Severe Arndt-
National Center on Educational Restructuring and
, aps, I9.4. 314-325.
Inclusion (NCERI)
I he transition CApertence of tOthiv people is oh disahilineN.
The National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion
;ndum% from the %animal Longitudinal
Vhilithari of
has been established to promote and support educational pro-
t19931.
Transition Stud, of Special Education Student
grams where all students are served effectively in inclusive set-
Menlo Park. ( .1: SRI International.
tings. Toward this goal, the National Center:
/ rat ers we the mainstream: Regular education and students with
1 Sparta! report front the
in seeondarr whim/.
Addresses issues of national and local policy
\animal Longitudinal Study of special education stu-
Disseminates information about programs, practices.
dents. (19931. Menlo Park. CA: SRI International.
evaluation, and funding
.1 report on the impact of
1 ern10111 s -lit 23n: Three I ears toter.
Provides training and technical assistance
let 230. (1993). Montpelier. VT: Department of Edu-
Builds a network of inclusion districts
cation.
Identifies individuals with expert's, in inclusion
Wang. M.C. & Baker. f- T. floss-8o) Mainstreaming pro-
Conducts research
grams: Design features and effects. /he Journal of Spe-
Infuses inclusion into educational restructuring.
;al Education. 19. 503-521
Wang. M.( . & Birch. J.W. 11984). Comparison of a 1U11-tone
mainstreaming programs and a resource room
approach. Exceptional Children. 51 t I i. 33-40.
National Center on Educational Restructuring and
It hat hopcn% n,xt.' Trends in rims, non/ OW, tunes ul tolah it rill
Inclusion
[he Second t. omprehensise Report trim the
,:isabiluic%
Dr. Dorothy Kenner Lipsky, Director
National Longitudinal transition Stud) of Speciat Edu-
cation Students. (1992). Menlo Park. CA: SRI Interna-
The Graduate School and University Center
tional.
The City University of New York
1 ork. J.. Vandercook. f. & AlacDonald. (. (19891. Regular
33 West 42 Street
class integration: Feedback from teachers and class-
New York, NY 10036
mates. Minneapolis: Institute on Communits Integra-
Telephone: [phone] or 2151
tion. Cmversity of Minnesota.
FAX: [phone]
York. J.. \andercouk. T . MacDonald. C.. Heise-Nell',
Caughnes. E. (1992). Feedback about integrating mid-
dle-school students ssith sesere disabilities in general
education classes. Exceptional Children. 58 (3), 2_44 -
_'58.
upright t
i he \atinnal (enter on Iducatonal
Igq5 hs
The Graduate School and I niserstis
Restructuring and Inclusion ,
nisersits of Seg. 1 ork
enter of the ( its
i
I
I
List of Publications bailable
Cost
Copies
D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner. in Controversial
of educationa'
I. "Achieving full inclusion: Placing the student at the center
S1.00.
issues confronting special education. (19921. 20 pages.
11,,rvard Educational Review (1987). A. Gartner & D.K.
for all students
2. "Beyond separate educatm. i ossard a quality system
Lipsky. 30 pages. S1.50.
2 pages ( Its citations'. Single copies free.
3. Bibliography of recent hooks on inclusive education. 119941.
$1.50.
Beim/ separate education: Oualitv education for all. (1989). 35 pages.
4 "Building the future.- D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner in
Children at cis,( in America. (1993). 25 pages. SI .25.
5. "Children at risk.- A. Gartner & D.K. Lipsky. in
Bulletin. No. 2 (Summer. 1994). 12 pages. Single copies free.
The full inclusion court cases.- Diane Lipton. \C R1
6.
Gartner. 3 pages. Single
tad %shy it matters... Cs«yitmal Parent. (1994). D.K. Lipsky & A.
not
"Inclusion: What it is. \slim it
copies free.
education:
Lipsky & A. Gartner. in Controversial issues confronting special
8. "Inclusive education and school restructuring.- D.K.
Ihvergem perspc,to es. I l'1'11 35 pages. SI -5.
'1. \animal S:u.11 ul Int.'1;si.., I.& di:on (!9"41 223 pages.
I (Spring. 19941.4 pages. Single copies free.
\C R1 Bulletin No
10. "National curses on inclusise education...
1995). Sin-
educational polies.- Harlan Hahn. \crw Bulletin. No. 3 (Winter.
"New trends in disability studies Implications for
I
I
gle copies free.
Children. (1989). 25
future, D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner. in (urine for 1merica s
12. "Overcoming school I.:Ohre: A shwa for the
pages. S1.25
Initiative: (19911. 20 pages. S1.00.
N. Gartner & U.K. Lipsky. in Regular Elucatum
13 "Restructuring fur
1 19891. 20 pages. S1.00.
education (Judiutv education tor all
14. "1 he roles of parents. D K. Lipsky. in Belmul .epdrate
students in the mainstream tit
arrangements.- D.K. Lipsky and A. (fanner. in Educating all
15. "School administration and financial
I 989). 15 pages. S .75.
general education. (
1. Gartner & D.K. Lipsky. in Schools in
maim and I
S. esperience.
"Seeing all student, in Indus's): NCIMOiN C ontraits
30 pages. S1.50.
transition: Rethinking regular and special education. (In press).
Bulletin. 3 (Winter.
and poor students... D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner. \(ERI
17. "Special education: Double Jeopardy for morns
1995). Single copies free.
e schooling. (1990). 14 pages. S .75.
D.K. Lipsky. in Support network Ow inclusiv
18. "Students as instructional agents.- A. Gartner &
Lipsky & A. Gartner. (1994). 35 pages. 51.50.
19. Testimony or the reauthorization of IDEA. D.K.
_
copies free.
D K. Lipsky. in Social Polio (19921..3 pages. Single
20. "We need a third ease of education reform.-
and the Economy.
Gartner & D.K. Lipsky. National (enter on Education
it.-
21. The yoke of special education: [loss to break
11989). 35 pages. S1.50.
TOTAL COST
Purchase orders accepted for orders of S50 or more.)
( Please make check pasable to N(ER1.
SASE.i
( For free items only. please enclose a
NCER1
Send order to:
The Graduate (enter. CNY
Room 153(1
13 West 42 Street
New York. N1 1003(\