Mainstreaming Ill and Disabled Students into the Public School System
Introduction
The tension between exclusion and inclusion has been a shaping force in United States society and education. Public schools, in particular, have experienced stages of incorporating a larger number of children with disabilities into classrooms. During the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, there was a lengthy period of institutional segregated education for persons with disabilities. Today, many previously segregated learners have benefited from the social movement toward inclusive education. This movement has been sometimes slow and hesitant, but the overall result has been progress (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996).
Several researches had already made the claim that integrating the ill and disabled students in the classroom shall deter their development and disrupt the learning of the regular students. However, I argue otherwise for three main reasons: (1) Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms heightens the awareness of each interrelated aspect of the school as a community; its boundaries, its benefits to members, its internal relationships, its relationships with the outside environment, and its history (Taylor, 1992); (2) ill and disabled students’ progress can be heightened by making them experience the regular classroom. It will further help them in coping with normal students. Finally, evidence shows that ill and disabled students does not disrupt the learning of the regular students.
For this reasons, I find it imperative that school administrators, teachers, parents and students alike view the integration of ill and disabled students in the classroom more positively. The bias and stereotyping associated with ill and disabled students is hoped to be minimized particularly in Tucson, Arizona by the conduct of researches in this nature. Moreover, since there is a very limited number of schools accepting ill and disabled students in Arizona, it is the hope of this proposed study that public schools open the doors to the inclusion of ill and disabled students in the regular classroom.
Background of the Study
Mainstreaming ill and disabled students had been a hotly debated issue in the education journals. One school of thought contends that inclusion will deter the academic learning of the regular students. Another argue that it will not affect the learning of the regular students. Some even went to the extend to propose that it actually helps in the learning process of the students. The state of Arizona currently suffers from the discrimination of ill and disabled students’ inclusion in the public school system. This is evidenced by the very few schools that accepts them in the regular classroom.
This is primarily because, the art of facilitating inclusion involved working creatively with the state of heightened awareness to redirect the energy bound up in fear toward problem solving that promoted reconsideration of boundaries, relationships, structures, and benefits Stainback & Stainback, 1996). When this redirection failed, students with disabilities remained on the outside of education, or they drifted with their individualized education programs (IEPs) and their aides (Schnorr, 1990). When this redirection succeeded, the life of a classroom shifted, in surprisingly quiet ways, to make room for new relationships, new structures, and new learning (Logan et al.,1994).
Statement of the Problem
Many educators agree that schools need to effectively integrate students with learning disabilities into the general education classroom. Students with learning disabilities are often characterized as inactive learners, remaining on the periphery of academic and social involvement in elementary and secondary classrooms (Torgeson, 1982). Central to the argument for effective integration of these students is that for a part of each day, most are removed from the general education curricula, and from their peers without disabilities; as a result, students with disabilities must continually reestablish themselves as members of the mainstream (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Reynolds,Wang, & Walberg, 1987).
This proposed study seeks to compare the learning process and academic learning of the students in four classrooms: two from public schools that integrates ill and disabled students in the regular classroom and two from public schools that does not include ill and disabled students. The independent variable shall be the classrooms without ill and disabled students. The dependent variable shall be the classroom with ill and disabled students.
Hypothesis
This proposed study shall test the following hypothesis:
1. Using the result of the survey questionnaire, there is no significant relationship between performance of classrooms with ill and disabled students and those that does not include ill and disabled students
2. Using the grades and state test scores of students, there is no significant relationship between performance of classrooms with ill and disabled students and those that does not include ill and disabled students
Definition of Terms:
Inclusion: can be defined as the practice of serving students with a full range of abilities and disabilities in the general education classroom – with appropriate in-class support.
Learning Disability (LD): A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which may manifest in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations which adversely affect the student’s
educational performance.
Public Law (PL) 94-142 ,the Education for All Handicapped Children Act: To the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities are educated with students who do not have a disability, and that special classes, separate schools or other removal, from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature of severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactory.
Regular Education: Instruction that is content-driven directed by a teacher who concerns him or herself with whole group instruction, record keeping and grades, and does not take into account any individual learning differences.
Limitations of the Study
The findings of this study cannot be generalized to other School systems. It is limited to the state of Arizona particularly in the High School level.
Significance of the Study
The information gathered from this study will public school administrators, teachers, counselors, parents, and others in determining whether exposure to an inclusion program benefits the student academically, socially, and from a family standpoint. Secondly, the data gained as a result of this study will be made available to individuals and agencies for the purposes of evaluating and planning inclusion programs.
Literature Review
Several studies have shown that inclusion is a viable method of instruction for students with disabilities as well as for students without disabilities. Affleck, Madge, Adams, and Lowenbraun (1988) compared the performance of students without learning disabilities placed in integrated and mainstream education programs and reported no significant differences between the two groups, suggesting that normally achieving students are not adversely affected by being placed with students with LD. They concluded that the students in the integrated programs more often reduced inappropriate behaviors, increased communication skills, exhibited greater independence and engendered higher parental expectations.
As evident by these various studies, the concept of inclusion enhances the education of students with and without disabling conditions. It promises to streamline the educational system and better allocate its most important resource, teachers. Yet, many if not most, of the schools have a long way to go before all students can enjoy the full benefits of inclusion. Research by Autin (1992) clearly establishes that integrated models improve the academic and social performance of all students. It also shows that comprehensive inclusion presents the best alternative to segregated special education, or exclusion.
This system of exclusion finds its roots in the 1954 decision, Brown v. Board of Education, (Murphy, 1996) where a separate education was also considered unequal. The African American students were shortchanged; they were separated from the mainstream and were provided an inferior education that would prove harmful in their lives. That same concept, inequality, is paramount with regard to the inclusion movement. Students who are emotionally disturbed, physically challenged, visually impaired, and learning disabled are often excluded from the total school population. From the standpoint of legal history, the establishment of the basic concept that no child can be denied or excluded from a publicly supported education because of a handicap is expressed under the document Public Law (PL) 94-142, or the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) which mandated appropriate education for all students with disabilities. Public Law 94-142 recognized and supported this need for the education of students with disabilities in regular classroom settings, by creating a presumption in favor of educating children with handicaps in regular education environments (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989, p. 448).
Students who are learning disabled may exhibit a wide range of traits, including poor reading comprehension, spoken language, writing and reasoning ability. Hyperactivity, inattention, and perceptual coordination problems may also be associated with LD, but are not examples of LD. Other traits that may be present include a variety of symptoms of brain dysfunction, including uneven and unpredictable test performance, perceptual impairments, motor disorders and emotional characteristics such as impulsiveness, low tolerance for frustration and maladjustment.
One possible cause for the failure of many programs serving youth with serious emotional disturbance to promote increased integration may be that little research has been undertaken to isolate specific variables that promote integration or increase the likelihood that children with serious emotional disturbance will be reintegrated (Schneider & Byrne, 1984). Of the studies investigating the decision to mainstream children with serious emotional disturbance, the focus has typically been on (a) the behavior or academic achievement of the student or (b) the characteristics of the regular education (mainstream) teacher (Carran, Rock, and Rosenberg, 1994).
Although the behavior of the child with serious emotional disturbance might logically be considered a major determinant in placement decisions, there is evidence to indicate that behavioral, social, interpersonal, and task-oriented skills are not being considered when reintegration decisions are made (Downing et al., 1990). Further, neither behavioral improvement nor academic achievement has been shown to differentiate students who were reintegrated from those who were not (Downing et al., 1990; Foley, Cullinan, & Epstein, 1990).
Methodology
This study will use the descriptive approach. This descriptive type of research will utilize interview, observation and questionnaires in the study. To illustrate the descriptive type of research, the researcher will be guided by Creswell (1994) when he stated: “Descriptive method of research is to gather information about the present existing condition. The purpose of employing this method is to describe the nature of a situation as it exists at the time of the study and to explore the cause/s of a particular phenomena.
The research described in this document is based solely on quantitative research methods. This permits a flexible and iterative approach. During data gathering the choice and design of methods are constantly modified, based on ongoing analysis. This allows investigation of important new issues and questions as they arise, and allows the investigators to drop unproductive areas of research from the original research plan.
This proposed study basically intends to investigate the effects of including ill and disabled students in public school classrooms in Tucson in terms of the academic achievements and development of the ill and disabled students and the regular students. This shall be compared to classrooms which do not have ill and disabled students. The effects of inclusion of ill and disabled students shall be monitored using two classrooms in Tucson whereas two classrooms in the same year level shall also be monitored using a public school which does not accept ill and disabled students. The academic performance of students shall also be based on the grades of the students.
In assessing the relationship of mainstreaming in public schools- the following variables shall be tested. The independent variable shall be the classrooms without ill and disabled students. The dependent variable shall be the classroom with ill and disabled students.
The primary source of data will come from a survey questionnaire which has already been used in previous researches which will be given to the respondents. This will be used instead of a research-made questionnaire in order to ensure that the questionnaire is properly validated and highly reliable. The respondents of this study will be from four public schools in Arizona; two classrooms which integrates ill and disabled students and two classrooms which does not include ill and disabled students. The academic records of the students shall be evaluated including state-wide examination results. This data will be asked from the teachers and the school administrators. Moreover, interviews shall also be conducted on the classroom teachers of the students and the school administrators. The teachers will also be asked to assess the students based on groupings the ill and disabled and the regular students.
The secondary sources of data will come from published articles from education and psychology journals, theses and related studies on educational psychology.
For this research design, the researcher will gather data, collate published studies from different local and foreign universities and articles from social science journals, distribute sampling questionnaires; arrange interviews; and make a content analysis of the collected documentary and verbal material. Afterwards, the researcher will summarize all the information, make a conclusion based on the null hypotheses posited and provide insightful recommendations on the dealing with the debate on the inclusion or exclusion of ill and disabled students in public schools.
Validation of the Instrument
Since this proposed study shall be using a standardized survey questionnaire, the validity and the reliability of the instrument to a certain degree is already established. However, to double check the applicability of the instrument on students in Tucson, Arizona, the researcher will initially submit a survey questionnaire and after approval, the survey will be given to 12 students, three for each classroom. After the survey questionnaire will be answered, the researcher will ask the respondents for any suggestions or any necessary corrections to ensure further improvement and validity of the instrument. The researcher will again examine the content of the survey questionnaire to find out the reliability of the instrument. The researchers will exclude irrelevant questions and will change words that would be deemed difficult by the respondents, to much simpler terms.
Administration of the Instrument
The revised instrument will then be administered to the respondents of the study which will be chosen through a combination of cluster and random sampling. The researcher will exclude the ten respondents who will be initially used for the validation of the instrument. The researcher will also tally, score and tabulate all the relevant data in the survey questionnaire. The result of the interviews on the teachers and the school administrators shall be transcribed for validation purposes.
After designing and validating the survey instruments, the researcher shall be inviting school systems and nonpublic schools to participate. First, school administrators shall complete a brief (one-page) information sheet reporting the total number of students who had been enrolled and the number of children reintegrated from their restrictive programs during the previous school year, indexed by each classroom teacher or case manager. Administrators shall also provide information on programmatic elements related to reintegration, such as reintegration procedures and options. Next, the classroom teachers of students with LD and Ill students in each participating schools shall complete a survey on personal background, program information, school reintegration practices, and opinions regarding reintegration. Data will be coded and analyzed using SPSS statistical software (SPSS, 1988).
Statistical Treatment of Data
When all the survey questionnaire will have been collected, the researcher will use statistics to analyze all the data. The statistics that will be used in this study shall be the frequencies and percentage for the demographic profile of the respondents; weighted mean and chi-square in determining the relationship of the demographic variables and the responses of the students on the questionnaire; a multiple regression analysis using ANOVA shall also be conducted in determining the significant relationships between variables. The researcher will be assisted by the SPSS in coming up with the statistical analysis for this study.
Conclusion
The research faces three difficulties. First is the conduct and the administration of the survey and the cooperation of the school administrator, teachers and the students. In order to solve this problem, coordination among the actors in this research shall be cleared. Moreover, letters shall be distributed to several schools so that in case, one school declines, there will always be fallback. Second, the documents needed for this research (grades, test scores, personal backgrounds of the students) may not be readily provided by the teachers. Thus, it will be cleared in the beginning before the agreement of their participation on the documents and records needed in the study. Finally, the confidentiality of the school’s name, the teachers, administrators and the students may be requested and waived by the participants. A letter signifying the nondisclosure of names as requested by the participants shall be provided.
References
Affleck, J.Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54, 339-348.
Autin, D. (1992). Segregated and second rate: Special education in New York. (Report No. NCERI-RR-92-4). Long Island, NY: National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357 573)
Carran, D., Rock, E. and Rosenberg, M. (1994) Variables affecting the reintegration rate of students with serious emotional disturbance. Exceptional Children, Vol. 61.
Cullinan, D., & Epstein, M. H. (1990). Academic and related functioning of mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed seriously emotionally disturbed students. Severe Behavior Disorders Monograph, 13, 80-89.
Danielson, E.C., & Bellamy, T. (1989). How we might achieve the radical reform of special education. Exceptional Children ,60, 441-450.
Downing, J. A., Simpson, R. L., and Myles, B. S. (1990). Regular and special educator perceptions of nonacademic skills needed by mainstreamed students with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 15(4), 217-226.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 367-395.
Karagiannis, A., Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Logan, K., Fiaz, E., Piperno, M., Rankin, D., MacFarland, A.,& Benjamin, K. (1994). How inclusion built a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 42-44.
Murphy, D.M. (1996). Implications of inclusion for general and special education. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 469-480.
Reynolds, M.C., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53(5), 391-398.
Schneider, B., & Byrne, B. M. (1984). Predictors of successful transition from self-contained special education to regular class settings. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 375-380.
Schnorr, R. (1990). Peter? He comes and goes….First graders perspectives on a part time mainstream student. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(4),231-240.
SPSS, Inc. (1988). SPSSX Version 3.1)
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Curriculum considerations for inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Taylor, P. (1992). Community. In E. Keeler & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 52-53). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Torgeson, S. (1982). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 41-53.
1
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment