Issues in Special Education - Literature review Example

ISSUES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Is Inclusive “Mainstreaming” Superior to Individualised Approaches in Meeting the Educational Needs of Students with Disabilities? One of the major challenges in education is to provide a quality learning experience to the diversity of students encountered in the classroom setting. Each student is unique; however, there is a spectrum of recognised disabilities affecting children that generate a requirement for educational curricula and settings that will meet the special education needs of this group of students. The educational parameters to be addressed in this paper pertain to the question of whether individualised or inclusive educational practices best serve the needs of children with disabilities. An important aspect of this inquiry involves a need to understand the types of disabilities that may challenge the ability of children to learn in a traditional setting that utilise traditional teaching approaches. Different approaches may be required to meet the needs of children with different types of disabilities. The opinions of educational experts on these important questions will be considered in this section of the paper along with the empirical educational studies that have provided insights into these important questions involving the special needs education requirements of students with disabilities. The second section of this report will address current legislative issues that impact special education in Australia. This section will explore the goals, standards and established rights of children with learning disabilities or special needs to obtain an education that equivalent to that of all students while at the same time meeting their specialized educational requirements. The final section will include a discussion of relevant approaches to this question based on the opinions of educational experts and the mandated requirements for the education of children who require additional educational support to maximize their educational achievement. Literature Review The past two decades have witnessed a major shift in focus of special needs education from the traditional institutionalised, individualised setting to an effort to “mainstream” children with diverse educational needs to the general classroom environment. This has resulted in a major challenge to the teaching profession; that is, how to meet the needs of a diverse student population in which some children may have significant impediments to learning (Cook, 2003). The difficulties inherent in such an approach have led to a re-opening of the age-old question of whether it serves the needs of learning disabled children to be educated in the general classroom versus individualised approaches. Special education classes originated in the early part of the 20th century to provide for the educational needs of children with visual, hearing and generalised learning disabilities. By the 1930s, children in the US with emotional disorders were also given special education opportunities (Hardman & Dawson, 2008). However, severely emotionally disabled children generally received no education. Today, placement in multi-tiered levels of special education is generally made after a determination of disability assessment, with the goal of mainstreaming the child to the extent possible in order to achieve reasonable educational goals. 1981 was the International Year of Disabled People and it played an important role in the assertion that children with disabilities should not be isolated from other children, but rather should be integrated in to the mainstream of education as possible. A more wholistic approach to education was also articulated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990. This sentiment has been argued forcefully by researchers in articulating the philosophy that special needs children should receive educational support within the context of mainstream education (Fuchs, 2007). This philosophy was well stated by Christensen (1992), p. 276: “Rather than a few students being seen to have 'special' needs, schools must regard all students' needs as part of the fabric of human experience and must become open, inclusive and responsive institutions which celebrate rather than eliminate human difference.” The stated benefits of full inclusion of students who are learning disabled is that the children are not isolated from their peers or removed from classes during the day to receive special instruction. This may limit the feelings of isolation and negative psychosocial effects that arise from these experiences (Friend & Pope, 2005); (Nougaret, et al., 2004). An older research study suggested that children in grades 2-5 with learning disabilities displayed academic progress when placed in an inclusive educational environment that matched their peers (Banerji & Dailey, 1995). An additional study of social function skills in children with special needs educated in an inclusive classroom environment indicated that these children showed lower levels of social confidence relating to peer acceptance, loneliness, self-concept and alienation parameters scored in this study when compared to low achievement and high achieving students in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grades (Kim, et al., 2003). In contrast, another study of the psychosocial effects of inclusion involved a substantially larger group of students than the aforementioned study. This study involved 3rd through 6th grade students compared to average and high achieving students. The students were placed in co-teaching or consultation/collaborative teaching environments. This study indicated that students in the consultation setting were better adjusted (Zigmund & Baker, 1995). This may be compared with another study which suggested that students with learning disabilities experienced more loneliness than their peers (Pavri & Luftig, 2000). A large study conducted a decade ago assessed the parameters of academic self-concept and social acceptance in learning disabled children in the inclusive classroom environment (Smith & Dowdy, 1998). The children in this study ranged from 2nd to 8th grade. The study arms involved a group at risk educationally, one group with disabilities, one group uncharacterised, and a fourth group whose native language was not English. This study indicated that students with the lowest self-concept were those who were categorised; students with disabilities also displayed lower levels of social acceptance compared to those at risk or non-categorised students. Interestingly, the categorised students displayed a higher level of academic self-concept than those who were non-categorised. Another older study by explored the feelings of students in an inclusive setting versus those who were separated from the group to receive special education classes (Hocutt (1996). The study results were somewhat equivocal, although a small majority appeared to prefer separate special education classes. Yet another study in this area suggested that students enjoyed the special attention and resources of the special education environment, yet enjoyed the socialisation of the inclusive environment (Smelter, 1994). Research studies have also explored teachers' attitudes toward students with disabilities in an inclusive educational setting (Cook, 2003). Seventy teachers participated in this study which assessed teacher attitudes toward children with mild to severe disabilities. The study results indicated that teachers were more likely to be indifferent to students with mild disabilities and more likely to reject students with severe disabilities compared to average students. Another study (Praisner, 2003) explored the attitudes of elementary school principals toward inclusion. About 20% of the principals expressed positive feelings about inclusion classrooms, which appeared to correlate with their professional experience in this practice. Other studies suggest that the inclusion of learning disability students in the classroom has no appreciable academic effect on students without disabilities (O’Rourke, 2006). Among the challenges faced by teachers with very diverse student populations involves the identification of individual students' specific educational needs within the larger group (Van Kraayenoord, 2007). In-depth studies in this area suggest that teachers who are good classroom managers have the least difficulty teaching a diverse student population that includes students with learning disabilities (Mc-Ghie, et al., 2007). Also, the implementation of a variety of teaching approaches contributes to success in this educational setting. An additional study suggested four criteria essential to success of the special needs student in the inclusive classroom: classroom management, positive feedback during instruction, appropriate learning conditions, and supportive environment (Westwood, 2004). Among the factors that affect student achievement in an inclusive learning environment are program design, which received the highest ranking in level of importance, followed by out-of-school environment and in-school environmental factors (Forbes, 2007). A meta-analysis on the contribution of school environment and teachers in performance indicated that school-related factors accounted for only 7%, teacher-related factors contributed 13%, but that student-associated factors accounted for more than 80% of the achievement parameters in disability students (McMillan & Parker, 2005). Despite the major focus on mainstreaming students with special needs or disabilities into an inclusive classroom, there has recently developed a renewed interest on the part of educators and parents in individualised approaches to meet the educational needs of these students. A recent article published in the Wall Street Journal (November 27, 2007) suggested that many parents feel their special needs children do not progress well in an inclusive classroom environment and would prefer that their children receive a more specialised educational curriculum more tailored to their special needs. This type of specialised educational environment could not easily be achieved in a traditional classroom setting. The notion that a child with learning disabilities may do better academically and benefit overall from individualised educational approaches constitutes a direct challenge to the idea that separate education is inherently discriminatory. Nonetheless, many individuals, especially parents, feel that their children benefit from more individualised educational opportunities made possible by a more separate approach to the education of special needs students. A study by Fuchs & Fuchs (2006a) reviewed the pros and cons of inclusive versus individualised educational approaches. An important argument against routine inclusion is that it is not possible that all students with disabilities would benefit from routine inclusion in the traditional classroom setting (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006b). Individual assessment is an important component of the views of those who hold that individualised education should be an available alternative to traditional educational approaches. Those who oppose full inclusion are sometimes referred to as “oppositionists”, though their position has a more positive foundation which insists that individuals have rights to education on an individualised basis that does not in any way impinge upon their civil rights (Friend, 1996). Many studies in this area cite the absence of conclusive data that mainstreaming promotes the attainment of educational goals in children with disabilities and special needs (Smith & Dowdy, 1998). In the viewpoint of oppositionists, full inclusion violates the individual's rights to obtain the educational services that may be required for the realisation of individual educational goals ( Smelter, 1994). Proponents of individualised educational approaches state that no one educational set-up can address the needs and educational requirements of all students, particularly those with learning disabilities (Forlin, 2006). The idea that segregation of students based on different educational needs is inherently discriminatory (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). Most importantly, the argument between these educational options is fueled by the dearth of empirical evidence to support either claim (Hallihan, et al., 2000). Additional studies highlight problems associated with the implementation of full inclusion practices in children with special needs (Zigmond & Baker, 1995). Among the problems cited were the lack of faculty time to address the needs of diverse student body and the lack of educational resources or specialised curricula to address the needs of students with disabilities. Other studies cite the difference in disability level or type that may indicate a better worse outcome associated with full inclusion (Hocutt, 1996). In this regard, learning disabled students appeared to do better in separate special education settings. Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder who received medication were found to benefit from an inclusive setting. Hearing impaired children experienced peer related issues more commonly in an inclusive educational setting. Severely emotionally disturbed children generally benefited from mainstream education where possible, but also experienced a higher dropout rate than in a special education environment. Educable mentally retarded students were found to have difficulty transitioning between different educational settings. Although these are generalisations, the studies indicate that placement options should take into account the type of disability involved in choosing between inclusive versus individualised educational settings. Current Policy and Legislation The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) has been a cornerstone of public policy for the rights of individuals with disabilities since its inception in 1995 (Disability Discrimination Act, 1995). It has important applications to the education of children with disabilities in regard to preventing discriminatory practices in this area (Skidmore, 1996). An important component of the DDA is equal opportunity for all regardless of limitations or disabilities to achieve their full potential. Most recently, the DDA was updated in 2005 to include new provisions on the rights of individuals with disabilities and the responsibilities of public institutions to meet the needs of the disabled individuals in the community (Disability Discrimination Act. 2005). The DDA (Section 4, p.208) defines a disabled individual as someone who has “…a disability that presently exists; or previously existed but no longer exists; or may exist in the future; or is imputed to a person” (Productivity Commission’s Report, 2003). This definition encompasses the terms: “substantial” in the context that the disability has a major effect on mental and/or physical function; “long term” constituting a minimum of twelve months duration; “normal day-to-day activities” include caring for self (dressing bathing) and general activities (walking, shopping); activities must relate directly to “capacity” as defined by the DDA: mobility manual dexterity speech hearing vision memory The DDA of 2005 amended the term “disability” to delete the requirement that mental illness must be clinically well-recognised (Disability Discrimination Act, 2005). In addition, the 2005 Act expanded the scope of conditions to be covered to include HIV-AIDS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. The Special Education Needs (SEN) Code of Practice provides guidelines for teachers and parents toward meeting the educational needs of children with disabilities as defined by the ADA (Anlezark, et al. 2006). The SEN Code provides for special equipment, classrooms and instruction as required for a child designated as “special needs”. This is designed to complement an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) based on the individual student assessment. The DDA provides for educational opportunities within “mainstream” schools or individualised settings accommodated by “special” schools. Parents may choose between these alternative options for a child who has SEN, provided certain conditions are met: the selected school must be suitable to meet the child's special educational needs; if there are selection criteria, the child must meet these criteria for admission; there must be no negative consequences or interference with the education of other children who attend the designated school; the decision must reflect appropriate use of community educational resources. The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) of Victoria has presented a series of discussion papers designed to address the challenges to educating children with special needs (Department of Education and Training, 2003). The Department provides for children with special needs via Regional Specialist children's teams. In 2007, the supervisory role of the Office of Children was transferred from the Department of Health Services (DHS) to the DEECD to facilitate the integration of services for all children, including those with disabilities. The current philosophy of the Victorian government embodies the notion that equity and quality are essential components of the educational rights of all students regardless of individual ability. This concept was put forward in the Disability Standards for Education in 2005 as a mandate for equal rights to quality education for all students. These standards call for equality in education in the areas of enrollment, participation, curriculum, support services and an absence of discrimination of any kind. This educational standard is built upon The Effective School Model which established an educational model based upon inclusive parameters of shared educational goals that view schools as learning communities with high expectations and accountability (Scheerens & Demeuse, 2005). This model attempts to accommodate diverse student populations in the following ways: whole-school education process with an inclusive focus; classroom teaching that focuses on individual and diverse learning styles; review and monitor the educational system. Support for this model comes from evidence in practice that indicates that whole-school educational process promote equality in education. In addition, the model provides for the educational needs of disabled children as an intrinsic component of the educational model. In this regard, the notion of inclusiveness is incorporated into every area of the educational process, including curriculum, teaching models and school organisation. It also stresses the need for a collaborative approach between educational leaders, teachers and parents to provide the highest level of education to all students. The Disability Standards in Education policy requires that provisions be made for the needs of disabled students on an individualised basis depending on the nature of the disability (Scheerens & Demeuse, 2005). This covers the scope of adjustments to building structure, curriculum, methods of evaluation and student assessment. Of especial importance is the development of curricula that will meet the needs of a diverse student body with differing educational requirements. For students with learning disabilities, the curricula must reflect individualised approaches that meet the needs of individual students. This requires a collaborative effort involving administrators, teachers, parents and students in order to maximise the learning potential of each student regardless of disability. In addition, teaching approaches must coordinate with the learning styles of the individual student with special needs. Another component involves a provision for children with special needs to interact and socialise with other children and to participate in appropriate school activities. A recent policy paper published by the Victoria Department of Education entitled, “Inclusive Schools are Effective Schools,” represents an important policy initiative attempting to integrate educational approaches to children with special needs that involve separate schools with those included in mainstream schools to achieve a high level educational experience for all children (Department of Education and Training, 2003). The paper defines an inclusive education as one that sees the uniqueness of each child regardless of disability in order to realise the individual capacities of each child in the context of a communal, supportive learning environment. In order to achieve the goal of inclusive education for all children, regardless of need, the following components of the educational system were emphasised: diverse teaching staff, including traditional and special education teachers, counselors and clinicians; flexible learning space that may involve rooms with options for partition, ranges of size and combining smaller spaces to larger areas for the purpose of more active participation in learning experiences. These concepts are based on the Blueprint for Government Schools (Department of Education and Training, 2003) that stresses equal access to quality education for all students based on inclusion. Discussion of Current Issues in Special Education: Inclusion versus Individualised Approaches Assessment of the current research and government policy and guidelines for the education of children with special needs indicates that there is a consensus regarding the necessity of providing the best possible educational opportunities to all students, but much less certainty as to the best way to achieve this goal. The challenge to provide for the educational needs for a diverse student population remains great as we move into the 21st century; yet, there are several important directions suggested by leaders in educational policy and curriculum. The first is that the lines between “mainstream” and “individualised” have begun to blur a bit, as educators confront the reality that “one size fits all” approaches to education generally do not serve well the needs of many, if not most, students. At the same time, it is apparent that children with learning disabilities or special educational needs often cannot be accommodated entirely within the context of the inclusive classroom environment to meet their educational needs. In part, this is reflected in a “backwards” movement by some educators and parents who have seen the difficulties that may occur when “mainstreaming” is applied almost routinely to the educational goals of special needs children without a realistic assessment of the individual needs of the student. Moreover, there are documented circumstances where separate classroom and/or schools may better serve the needs of the learning disabled child. In order to better resolve the question of whether individualised or inclusive approaches are more appropriate vehicles for special education, the studies suggest that it is important to assess not only the academic goals and accomplishments but also to consider the psychosocial parameters that may be affected by these different approaches to special education. In the past, individualised approaches involving special separate classrooms or schools were beset by the stigma that separate is intrinsically unequal. More recently, some educators have taken a more flexible approach to the question, in that, for some children, under some circumstances, individualised approaches may be more appropriate, more successful and result in greater confidence and achievement in the learning or emotionally disabled child. More modern approaches toward inclusive education take into account the importance of implementing a diversity of curricula and teaching approaches into a single classroom to better meet the needs of all children, none of whom is identical in terms of abilities, challenges, or learning styles. In this approach to education, the special needs child is seen as part of a larger whole. In many cases, the curriculum, teaching tools and educational support may be incorporated into the mainstream classroom to minimise the “separateness” that can be a stigamatising factor in education. There is, however, increasing recognition that some children may do better with individualised approaches that involve separate facilities. Thus, there appears to be no easy answer to the question of how best to educate the child with disabilities and/or special needs. Probably one of the best educational initiatives in this area involves the use Individualised Educational Plans (IEPs) that attempt to evaluate each child and then to adapt the educational curriculum to best meet the needs of the child on an ongoing basis. In this regard, legislative and governmental mandates that guarantee the rights of the individual to receive a high quality education are essential to ensure that each child receives the services that are required to meet his or her educational needs. Since the needs of some children are extensive, and since special education resources are very expensive, it is important that the civil rights of each child are protected to ensure that budgetary cuts or other impediments do not restrict in any way the rights of children with disabilities or special needs to receive the education they deserve. It is important that research on special needs education continue, as it appears that there is no current consensus regarding the optimal educational approaches to meet the needs of this diverse group. It is also important to recognise that no one approach to education may be appropriate to meet the needs of a very diverse student population and that the availability of educational alternatives may be the most appropriate way of offering educational equality to children with special needs. Finally, research studies suggest that it is important to involve the child and the parents in the education decision-making process. The wholistic needs of the child must be considered. Children learn best when they are in a comfortable setting, when they feel warmth and acceptance, when they are academically challenged but also given the support they need in order not to become overwhelmed. Education involves not only the attainment of academic achievement but also the development of self-esteem, social skills and vocational skills to enable each child to become a confident, productive member of society. This wholistic approach to education requires teamwork between parent, students, teachers, support staff, and administrators to create a successful learning environment that supports the needs of all children to the best extent possible. Conclusion Although the special education needs of children with learning, emotional and cognitive disabilities was recognized over a century ago, there are still many challenges and controversies regarding the best way to meet the educational needs of these children to facilitate their highest possible achievement. The rights of the individual to an education regardless of disability have been accepted in most parts of the world. This concept has often been interpreted to suggest that inclusive educational programs and policies are the best way to secure the educational rights and equality of the learning disabled child. As we move into the 21st century, there appears to be recognition that “no one size fits all” and that individualised approaches in the context of an inclusive environment may ultimately be the thread that brings together the educational needs of all children, regardless of disability. Works Cited Anlezark, A., Karmel, T. & Koon, O. (2006). Have school vocational educational programs been successful? National Centre for Vocational Educational Research. Banerji, M., & Dailey, R. (1995). A Study of the Effects of an Inclusion Model on Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 28(8), 511-522. Christensen, C. (1992). Commentary: discrepancy definitions of reading disability: has the quest led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly 27(3), 276-278. Cook, B., & Schimer, B. (2003). What is special about special education? Special Education 37(3), 200-205. Department of Education and Training. (2003). Blueprint for government schools. State of Victoria Department of Education and early Childhood Development (DEECD). Disability Discrimination Act. (1992). scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/311/pdf/DDA1992 Disability Discrimination Act. (2005). opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2005/ukpga_2005 Forbes, F. (2007). Towards inclusion:an Australian perspective. Support for Learning 22(2), 66-71. Forlin, C. & Hopewell, T. (2006). Inclusion-the heart of the matter: teacher’s perceptions of a parent’s journey. British Journal of Special Education 33(2), 55-61. Friend, M. (1996). Response to reflections on special education teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education 19(3). Friend, M. & Pope, K. (2005). Creating schools in which all students can succeed. Kappa Delta Pi Record 41(2), 56-61. Fuchs, D. & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities research and Practice 22(2), 129-136. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2006a). A framework for building capacity for responsiveness to intervention. School Psychology Review 35(4), 621-626. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2006b). Introduction to response to intervention: what, why and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly 41(1), 93-99. Fuchs, E. (2007). Children’s rights and global civil society. Comparative Education 43(3), 393-412. Hardman, M. & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure 52(20), 5-11. Hallahan, D., Keller, C., Martinez, E., Byrd, E., Gelman, J., & Fan, X. (2000). How variable are interstate prevalence rates of learning disabilities and other special education categories? A longitudinal comparison. Exceptional Children 73(2). Hocutt, A. (1996). Effectiveness in special education: Is placement the critical factor?Future of Children 6(1), 77-102. Johnson, M. (2007). Before its time: public perception of disability rights, the americans with disabilities act, and the future of access and accommodation. The Wall Street Journal (23), p.121. Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B., Hughes, M., Sloan, C. & Sridhar, D. (2003). Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities: a synthesis of group design studies. Remedial and Special education 24(1), 2-15. . Mc-Ghie, R., Underwood, K. & Jordan, A. (2007). Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada 17(1), 27-52. McMillan, W. & Parker, M. (2005). “Quality is bound up with our values”: evaluating the quality of mentoring programmes. Quality in Higher Education 11(2), 151-160. Nougaret, A., Scruggs, T. & Mastropieri, M. (2004). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children (71). O’Rourke, J. & Houghton, S. (2006). Students with mild disabilities in regular classrooms. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 31(4), 232-242. Pavri, S. & Luftig, R. (2000). The social face of inclusive education: are students with learning disabilities really included in the classroom? Preventing School Failure 45(1), 8-14. Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children 69(2), 135-45. Productivity Commission's Report. (2003). Review of the disability discrimination act 1992 . Australia Printing Office. Scheerens, J. & Demeuse, M. (2005). The theoretical basis of the effective school improvement model. School Effectiveness & School Improvement 16 (4), 373-385. Skidmore, D. (1996). Towards an integrated theoretical framework for research into special educational needs. European Journal of Special needs education 11(1), 33-47. Smelter, R. (1994). Thinking of inclusion for all special needs students? Better think again. Phi Delta Kappan 76(1),35-38. Smith, T. & Dowdy, C. (1998). Educating young children with disabilities using responsible inclusion. Childhood Education 74(5), 317-320. Van Kraayenoord, C. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in Australia. Childhood Education 83(6), 390. Westwood, P. & Arnold, W. (2004). Meeting individual needs with young learners Online forum report. ELT Journal 58(4), 375-378. Zigmond, N. & Baker, J. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: themes and implications from the five cases. Journal of Special Education 29(2), 163-180. Read More