|
Dillon, A.D., Tashie, C., Schuh, M., Jorgensen,
C., Shapiro-Barnard, S., Dixon, B., & Nisbet, J.
(1993, August). Treasures: A celebration of
inclusion. Concord, NH: Institute on Disability,
University of New Hampshire.
This book is intended to, among other things,
"inspire those who have not had the experience of
working in inclusive schools to work toward equity
and excellence" (p. 3). The book includes a
foreword by Marsha Forest, of the Centre for
Integrated Education and Community, in Toronto,
Canada; stunning photographs of inclusion taken by
Gary Samson, three of which are reproduced in this
News Digest; many evocative quotes; and an
afterword by Rick Betz, a high school student with
disabilities. There are no real "how-tos" in this
book but there are an abundance of "why-tos."
(NICHCY)
Full inclusion: Educating students with
disabilities in the regular classroom. (1994).
Horsham, PA: LRP.
This document is a compilation of articles
which analyze the issue of inclusion from a legal
perspective. Several articles have been reprinted
from The Special Educator. Six case laws and two
policy rulings have been reprinted which show
trends since 1991 in legal interpretation of the
courts regarding inclusion. The document also
includes a checklist of questions to ask when
determining least restrictive environment,
authored by attorney Reed Martin. (WRRC)
Hammond, M., Jentzsch, C., & Menlove, M. (1994).
Fostering inclusive schools and communities: A
public relations guide. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah
State Office of Education and Utah State
University.
This public relations guide provides
step-by-step instructions for implementing an
effective, low-budget public relations campaign on
the issue of inclusion. The chapter topics
include: Promoting an image; Language, attitudes,
and disability; Publicity; Parent involvement;
Community organizations; Employer/business
participation; School personnel participation;
Brochures and newsletters; Speakers bureau; and
Rural communities. Although many of the sources
listed in the guide are specific to Utah, the
information can be applied to other states as
well. (WRRC)
Hartman, W.T. (1994, Spring). Funding for a
unified educational system. Special Education
Leadership Review, 2(1), 33-38.
The funding structure for a unified
educational system must follow the adoption of a
single instructional and administrative system.
Most funding structures are based on categorical
labelling of students. Fiscal incentives for
including students with disabilities need to be
incorporated while disincentives should be
removed. The major features of a unified funding
system are listed, and several funding approaches
are discussed. (WRRC)
Heumann, J.E. (1994, September 16). Questions to
frequently asked questions about the requirements
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. (See availability information listed
for this document under "References.")
This memorandum was prepared by the U.S.
Department of Education in response to questions
posed by the National Education Association (NEA)
regarding IDEA and, in particular, its special
education/inclusion legal requirements. Using a
question and answer format to answer some of the
questions most frequently asked by NEA members,
the document provides substantial guidance and
clarification regarding what Federal law
(including Section 504 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act) requires with respect to
inclusion and the education of students with
disabilities. Appendices include the IDEA's state
complaint procedures, an August 15, 1994 list of
state directors of special education, information
about the Office of Civil Rights' (OCR) complaint
resolution procedures, and a list of OCR's
regional offices. (NICHCY)
Heumann, J.E., & Hehir, T. (1994, November 23).
OSERS memorandum to Chief State School Officers:
Questions and answers on the least restrictive
environment requirements of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. (Available from NICHCY.)
In response to questions from the Chief State
School Officers and others, this memorandum
provides guidance regarding IDEA's LRE
requirements. Using a question and answer format,
Judith Heumann (Assistant Secretary of the Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services)
and Thomas Hehir (Director of the Office of
Special Education Programs) provide clarification
about what IDEA requires in terms of LRE, whether
IDEA defines "inclusion," the process by which IEP
teams should make placement decisions, what is
meant by "supplementary aids and services," and
many other issues associated with LRE and placing
students with disabilities in general education
classrooms. (NICHCY)
Kauffman, J.M., & Hallahan, D.P. (1994). The
illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive
critique of a current special education bandwagon.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
The essays in this book analyze the movement
toward full inclusion of students with
disabilities from the perspective that questions
and cautions, lest the movement produce
disappointment by "crushing" the very students it
is supposed to defend. Part One places the full
inclusion movement in its historical context; Part
Two examines policies and commentaries; Part Three
discusses disability-specific issues, including
blindness and deafness. Inclusionary placement of
ALL students is questioned by many of the 15
authors whose essays are included in this
collection. (WRRC)
Lombardi, T.P. (1994). Responsible inclusion of
students with disabilities. Bloomington, IN: Phi
Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Part of Phi Delta Kappa's Fastback series,
this booklet provides a short, easy-to-read
overview of the issues associated with inclusion.
Chapters discuss: the basis for inclusion (both
legal mandates and moral principles); research;
instructional and learning models effective with
students with disabilities; education and training
for teachers, administrators, and other
professionals; new roles and responsibilities
(consultation and collaboration); and modifying
instruction. The booklet concludes with a
separate inclusion checklist for administrators,
teachers, and parents. (NICHCY)
McLaughlin, M.L., & Warren, S.H. (1992,
September). Issues and options in restructuring
schools and special education programs. College
Park, MD: Center for Policy Options in Special
Education.
This document is intended for Boards of
Education, superintendents, local administrators,
principals, and school-based decision-making teams
involved in school restructuring and special
education. The issues and options are summarized
in five critical areas of school restructuring:
(a) developing a clear vision and mission for
education that includes all students; (b)
establishing a system of accountability for all
educational programs; (c ) creating an organization
that supports the restructuring mission; (d)
changing what schools teach and how they teach it;
and (e) creating supports for staff development
and renewal. (NICHCY)
McLaughlin, M.J., & Warren, S.H. (1994, June).
Resource implications of inclusion: Impressions of
special education administrators at selected sites
(Policy Paper Number 1). Palo Alto, CA: Center
for Special Education Finance.
This policy paper documents the results of a
preliminary investigation of some of the issues
surrounding resource allocation in schools moving
toward inclusive education. Using interviews with
administrators in 12 school districts, the
researchers obtained information about how
expenditures in staffing, transportation,
facilities, equipment, and professional
development had changed as inclusion was
implemented. Although the authors conclude that
inclusion does not cost more than other modes of
service delivery, the investigation suggests that
initial implementation of inclusion can require
additional resources. Those districts that feel
inclusion is the right thing to do continue to
implement inclusion with whatever resources they
have available to them. (NICHCY/WRRC)
McLaughlin, M.J., & Warren, S.H. (1994, November).
The costs of inclusion. The School Administrator,
2(1), 8-19.
The "costs" of inclusion, in terms of
financial and human resources, are explored in
this article. University of Maryland researchers
interviewed special education directors,
principals, and other administrators in 14 school
districts practicing inclusion. These individuals
identified five areas affected by the move to
inclusion: teachers and instructional assistants;
transportation; facilities; materials and
equipment; and professional development. In
addition to discussing each of these areas, the
authors attempt to draw conclusions about the cost
of each area to school districts. (WRRC)
NASBE Study Group in Special Education. (1992,
October). Winners all: A call for inclusive
schools. Alexandria, VA: National Association of
State Boards of Education.
This report highlights the efforts of a
number of schools, districts, and states to
provide public education more responsive to the
needs of all children. Unfortunately, these
success stories of inclusion are often the result
of commitment of a few skilled individuals who run
the specific programs, rather than a broad
commitment to reform. Change at all levels is a
difficult, slow, often painful process. While
this report makes recommendations for creating a
system that will support change and outlines the
study group's vision for education, it is the
group's hope that the report's readers will help
make that vision a reality. (Levine)
National Center for Educational Outcomes. (1994,
May). Students with disabilities and educational
standards: Recommendations for policy and
practice. NCEO Policy Directions, Number 2, 1-6.
This policy brief gives an overview of the
issues associated with establishing educational
standards for students and how this might be
approached with students who have a disability.
First, four types of "standards" (content,
opportunity-to-learn, performance, and assessment)
are defined. Then three issues associated with
establishing standards for all students are
discussed. The merits and limitations of three
approaches to standards for students with
disabilities are presented: IEP-based standards,
standards for group gains, and separate standards.
The policy brief concludes with recommendations
for policy and practice. (Other policy briefs are
available as well from NCEO on the subject of
including students with disabilities in
large-scale assessments.) (NICHCY)
NEA Professional Standards and Practice. (1993).
Integrating students with special needs: Policies
and practices that work. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
This book is the product of discussions
held in 1991 between NEA regular and special
educators and representatives of the educational
research and policy, practice, teaching, and
advocacy group communities. It presents the
professional concerns and professional
recommendations of experienced, practicing
teachers who are involved in integrating students
with special needs (particularly those with
learning disabilities) into general education
classrooms.
Three papers in the book address policy
issues such as: (a) successful state policies that
integrate regular and special education groups;
(b) concerns and factors associated with including
students with learning disabilities; and (c ) how
to translate state and association policies into
effective school programs.
Three other papers present research-based
discussions of: (a) using cooperative education as
a tool to promote inclusion; (b) improving
decision-making skills and increasing achievement
levels of students, using computerized
curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring;
and (c ) effective integration approaches and
techniques. The book concludes with a glossary of
terms and a list of questions to guide development
of state and local strategies to influence
effective implementation of IDEA's LRE provisions.
(NICHCY)
Parrish, T.B., & Mongomery, D.L. (1995, March).
The politics of special education finance reform
in three states. Palo Alto, CA: Center for
Special Education Finance.
The purpose of this paper is "to present a
discussion of the politics of special education
finance reform in three states that have enacted
substantial legislative change within the past 5
years" (p. 1). The states examined are: Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Each case study
provides the history and rationale for change; an
overview of the current formula; a description of
how change was accomplished; and the lessons
learned. These case studies are intended to
provide guidance to other special education
directors currently attempting to enact special
education finance change in their states.
(NICHCY)
Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (1992).
School restructuring and full inclusion (Revision
5, pre-publication copy). San Francisco:
California Research Institute. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 365 050)
This monograph addresses the issue of full
inclusion of children and youth with severe
intellectual disabilities and whether this form of
social and academic integration is consistent with
the direction of present school reform policies.
The first section examines the implications of
current efforts in educational reform. A case
study illustrates differences between integration
and inclusion. Key elements of full inclusion are
identified: (a) full class membership; (b) full
perception of "ownership" by the general education
program (including special education); (c )
individual outcomes-based decision making; (d)
student-based services with team curriculum
design; and (e) site team coordination of services
and educational support.
Next, issues in education policy (such as
recent trends in general education policy and
reform) are discussed. The following critical
variables in school restructuring are identified:
curriculum revision, performance-based assessment,
decentralized instruction, school autonomy,
site-based management and budgeting, shared
decision making, infusion and coordination of
educational resources, and community involvement.
Finally, the comprehensive local school is
described as a framework for inclusion through
delivery of a variety of special education
services and through systematic team design of the
individual's curriculum within the general
curriculum. (WRRC)
Salisbury, C., & Chambers, A. (1994).
Instructional costs of inclusive schooling. The
Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 19(3), 215-222.
This article describes results of a
longitudinal study of the cost of inclusion in
Johnson City School District in New York. Results
of the five-year study include: (a) District costs
were significantly less on an annual basis
relative to comparable costs for out-of-district
services; (b) Although there was a significant
increase in the number of students with severe
disabilities during the five-year period, district
costs were still well below that of
out-of-district services; (c ) Related service
costs doubled during the five-year period, linked
with the increase in students with more intensive
needs; and (d) The number of and reliance upon
paraprofessional staff for support in the regular
classroom significantly increased. The authors
theorize that the integrated nature of the
district's service delivery system helped them to
contain costs, and that the use of existing
resources, such as transportation, benefited all
students and eliminated the need for additional
expenses. (WRRC)
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994, April).
Special education reform: Districts grapple with
inclusion programs: Statement of Linda G. Morra.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Select
Education and Civil Rights, Committee on Education
and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives.
Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 372 552)
Linda G. Morra gave this testimony before the
House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Select
Education and Civil Rights, and reported the
results of interviews with experts in academia,
government, and interest groups and visits to
districts in California, Kentucky, New York, and
Vermont, considered leaders in education reform.
Ms. Morra stated that inclusion programs can
work, but they take tremendous effort and
considerable resources. She enumerated four key
conditions for addressing the needs of students
with disabilities in inclusive settings: (a) a
collaborative learning environment, (b) natural
proportions of students with disabilities in their
local education setting; (c ) adequate support
(including large numbers of aides and training)
for classroom teachers, and (d) a philosophical
reorientation defining special education as a
service, rather than a place. Ms. Morra also
reported that parents and teachers have been
generally supportive of inclusion. However,
inclusion is not for all students, she cautioned,
and stated that major questions regarding funding,
access, equity, and the role of the Federal
government remain unanswered. (NICHCY)
Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Stainback, W., &
Stainback, S. (Eds.). (1992). Restructuring for
caring and effective education: An administrative
guide to creating heterogeneous schools.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
This book is intended to further both general
and special education reform in this era of school
restructuring. When schools make a commitment to
inclusive education, school organization must be
rethought; in support of that need, this book
includes detailed methods for planning,
implementing, and evaluating classrooms so that
instructional practices accommodate all children.
Case studies of six schools that have successfully
implemented inclusive education are provided, as
are guidelines for merging regular and special
education; preparing staff and involving parents;
encouraging the self-direction of students;
managing classrooms; and structuring opportunities
for collaboration. (NICHCY)
Ysseldyke, J.E., and others. (1994, April).
Making decisions about the inclusion of students
with disabilities in large-scale assessments: A
report on a working conference to develop
guidelines on inclusion and accommodations
(Synthesis Report 13). Alexandria, VA: National
Association of State Directors of Special
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 372 562)
This report is a summary of a March 1994
meeting to agree on guidelines for making
inclusion and accommodation decisions concerning
students with disabilities in national and state
large-scale assessments. Much of the discussion
at the meeting focused on the National Assessment
of Educational Progress. Factors that lead to the
exclusion of students with disabilities are
pointed out, and the importance of inclusion is
noted. Fifteen major points made during the
meeting are presented. Based on those points,
recommendations are offered for making inclusion
decisions, for making accommodation decisions, and
for monitoring. Five actions are suggested for
moving forward toward inclusion and accommodation.
(ERIC: JDD)
Back to the Top
Continue on to part 4 of this digest
|
