1. CONTROVERSIAL THERAPIES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice John W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, and James A. Mulick CHAPTER 8  The Delusion of Full Inclusion Devery R. Mock and James M. Kauffman
Chapter Presentation by
Leslie Mozulay
ABA 553- Assessing Autism Interventions
Summer Session A Dr. Kenneth Reeve

2. BACKGROUND 1975 – U.S. Legislation
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
which gives all children regardless of disability the
right to a free public education.
later referred to as Public Law
1990 version of this law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), started an "inclusion movement" which recommends that no child be assigned to a special classroom or be segregated into another part of the school

3. I N C L U S I O N DOES IT WORK? IF SO, HOW? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
Request comments, opinions

4. INCLUSION vs. FULL INCLUSION
Inclusion: educating disabled children part time in regular classrooms
Full inclusion: educating disabled children full time in regular classrooms
no time outside regular classrooms
always learn in an environment not tailored for the disabled
expected to keep up with the pace of non-disabled students Read more: Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.com

5. Consideration of F U L L I N C L U S I O N from the viewpoint of . . .
Scientist
Social Advocate
Legislator
School Board Member
School Administrator
Behaviorist
Teacher- General Education
Teacher- Special Education
Aide- Paraprofessional
Parent
Student
Sibling
Other

6. INCLUSION IN ACTION FOR AND AGAINST
Website that provides 24 plus pages of sources for information for and against Inclusion.
Some do refer to Full Inclusion.

7. Dr. Alan Harchik of the
May Institute for Children with Autism says,
"It is unrealistic to expect that regular education teachers will always have the specific training...be aware of the latest research, or be able to readily adapt the school's curriculum."
“Thus, children with disabilities need a supplementary class and teacher who can deal with these issues.” Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.com

8. Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade.”
VIDEO
Teachers Network
"INCLUSION:
Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)
in 3rd Grade.”
Inclusion School
means special education as well general education are taught by two teachers all day long
collaborative team teaching
small and large groups
smaller teacher to student ratio
differentiated instruction
modify and enrich curriculum
sense of community allows all children to learn and grow together
Philosophy--- all deserve to learn IN LRE
honors all learning styles
learn all people are different
all have different strengths
all need different things to do our best
fair is not always equal
and anyone can learn from anyone else

9. INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade
RECAP VIDEO
INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade
Gather information from class.

10. RECAP OF VIDEO INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade
means special education as well general education are taught by two teachers all day long
collaborative team teaching
small and large groups for smaller teacher to student ratio
differentiated instruction
modified and enriched curriculum
sense of community allows all children to learn and grow together
philosophy--- all deserve to learn in LRE
honors all learning styles
opportunity to learn all people are different
all have different strengths
all need different things to do our best
fair is not always equal
and anyone can learn from anyone else

11. REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE of the 1980s
forerunner of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
elimination of the necessity of special education for at least many, if not most (Dunn,1968;Deno,1970)
assumptions included
all students are very much alike
many or most students with disabilities can be taught by regular classroom teachers
(Kavale & Forness, 2000)
This thinking based on Dunn and Deno leads to special education will
“work itself out of business” (p.233) by giving general educators the techniques it had special education field had developed.

12. FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT of the 1990s
complete elimination of special education as a separate entity (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994)
assumption that normalizing influence of the general education classroom is more important and powerful than specialized, therapeutic interventions, even in the face of evidence that separate, special environments produce better outcomes for some students
(e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).

13. Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS
Cost factors
Separation from mainstream
and Self Esteem
Misidentification of students
Quality of services
Continuum of alternative placements
Policy making

14. COSTS of Special Education
As more students with disabilities can be served in general education classes by regular teachers, FIM saves on cost for
space (separate classes)
staff (special teachers)
intensified instruction
(lower pupil-teacher ratios)
(Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)
COST
Some say special education is a waste of money (Cottle, 2001; Fletcher, 2001)
The cost of special education is too high, in part because of expensive placement (e.g., Cottle, 2001; Soifer, 2002)
Services are too expensive and of poor quality
(Alexander, Gray, & Lyon, 1993; Lyon & Fletcher, 2001; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996, 1997, 1998; McGill-Franzen, 1994; Slavin, 2001; Slavin & Madden, 2001a, 2001b)

15. Full Inclusion Movement’s concern with SELF ESTEEM
self-esteem of students is damaged with separation
“segregating” special education students in homogenous groupings in self-contained programs is a disadvantage
(Monk and Kauffman, 2005)
FIM sees categorizing students is harmful
The place in which instruction occurs- not instruction itself- has become the central issue in special education
(Crockett & Kauffman, 1999).
nothing pervasively wrong with special education
Still utilize interventions
Still need special education training and research
(Blackman, 1992, p. 29, italics in original)
And that by just changing a location instruction will improve
determined? This is no joke—
Current practice of changing a student’s location is often what is considered the solution.

16. Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS MISIDENTIFICATION and QUALITY OF SERVICES of special education students
Concerns with students not being able to reach their true potential because
disabilities are not properly defined
instructional practices are fragmented
teachers have low expectations and poor training
students are separated from the mainstream
(Alexander, Gray, & Lyon, 1993; Lyon & Fletcher, 2001; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996, 1997, 1998; McGill-Franzen, 1994; Slavin, 2001; Slavin & Madden, 2001a, 2001b)

17. Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS Continuum of Alternative Placements (CAP)
CAP focuses on “free appropriate public education”
CAP includes instruction in general education, special education, special schools, home instruction, hospital, institutions
CAP stresses Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
CAP requires provision for supplementary services
CAP promotes opportunities for student to interact with peers who are nondisabled, to the extent appropriate
Individual needs are to be addressed.
Placement to take place in environment that is MOST APPROPRIATE

18. To accomplish FULL INCLUSION
Lipsky and Gartner (1997) suggested, “ use of instructional strategies that experienced and qualified teachers use for all children.”
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
CURRICULAR ADAPTATIONS
MODIFICATIONS
ACCOMMODATIONS
WHOLE LANGUAGE
PAUSE and ASK CLASS ABOUT EXPERIENCES with
COOPERATIVE LEARNING-

19. COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Share experiences

20. COOPERATIVE LEARNING
12 studies were reviewed by Tateyama-Sniezek (1990)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE= cooperative learning
DEPENDENT VARIABLE= academic achievement
OVER 10 YEARS LATER completion of another literature review by McMaster and Fuchs (2002)
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
-teachers group students
-students work together on assigned tasks (range from practicing teacher-taught skills to students discovering new knowledge)
12 studies were reviewed by Tateyama-Sniezek (1990)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE= cooperative learning
DEPENDENT VARIABLE= academic achievement
FOUND “the opportunity for students to study together did NOT GUARANTEE gains in academic achievement,”
OVER 10 YEARS LATER with the completion of another literature review by
McMaster and Fuchs (2002)
CONCLUSION
“the use of empirically supported cooperative elements may be an important,
but NOT A SUFFICIENT,
determinant of cooperative learning’s effectiveness, specifically for student with LD.”
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p. 118)
“Why would we expect classmates to be better at helping LD students learn than professional teachers using an empirically validated curriculum?”

21. CONCLUSION regarding COOPERATIVE LEARNING
NO GUARANTEE of academic gains . . .
“the use of empirically supported cooperative elements may be an important, but NOT A SUFFICIENT, determinant of cooperative learning’s effectiveness, specifically for student with LD.”
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p. 118)

22. The authors state . . .
“Why would we expect classmates to be better at helping LD students learn than professional teachers using an empirically validated curriculum?”
(Mock & Kauffman, p. 118)

23. CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS
NINE TYPES
QUANTITY
TIME
LEVEL OF SUPPORT
INPUT
DIFFICULTY
OUTPUT
PARTICIPATION
ALTERNATE GOALS
SUBSTITUTE CURRICULUM
Diana Browning Wright with permission from Jeff Sprague, Ph.D. from an original by DeSchenes, C., Ebeling, D., & Sprague, J. (1994). Adapting Curriculum & Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms: A Teachers Desk Reference. ISDDCSCI Publication.
NOTE: Diana Browning Wright, Teaching & Learning Positive Environments-Network of Trainers (PENT) Director/School Psychologist/Behavior Analyst

24. CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS
Accommodations
Modifications

25. ADAPTATIONS MODIFICATION ACCOMMODATION
Provides equal access to taking in information for learning and allows students to use different ways to demonstrate knowledge
DOES NOT alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject area
Grading is the same
MODIFICATION
Curriculum and/or instruction is changed to provide students with meaningful & productive learning experiences based on individual needs and abilities.
DOES alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject area
Grading is different

26. EXAMPLES MODIFICATIONS ACCOMMODATIONS seating in room extra time
level of support (peer, aide, teacher)
verbal rather than written responses
address learning styles by altering assignments
visual aides
manipulatives
alter goals or outcome expectations
lower the criteria for grading
student works on different skill area (addition instead of multiplication)
reduce amount of work expected (10 spelling words instead of 20)
allow use of calculator

27. Weak, stress reducing treatments
CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS
used in response to problems for students with mild to severe disabilities can be seen as
Quack remedies
Not cure-alls
Weak, stress reducing treatments
(Worrall, 1990)
Referring back to Worrall, 1990
In regard to curriculum adaptations in response to problems for students with mild to severe disabilities 

28. What Full Inclusion Movement advocates fail to see . . .
how EFFECTIVE, if at all, an adaptation may be
that perhaps “separate or different objectives for one or a few students can lead to their isolation or segregation” (Stainbeck et. al., 1996).
that adaptations can be made in an indiscriminate manner
(questioning validity of adaptation and instruction)
that a student may NOT be ENGAGED in the learning process with an adaptation aimed at a large group and being inappropriate for an individual

29. 1980s WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH in FULL INCLUSION CLASSROOMS
abandons specific skill instruction - decoding written language
focuses on reading process as a whole- reading as using language
rejects value of quantitative evidence of effectiveness
adopted in absence of any credible evidence of its efficacy (Adams, 1995; Slaving, 2001)

30. After implementation of WHOLE LANGUAGE
RESULTS of 1992 and 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress
more than 40% of fourth graders were unable to read grade-appropriate texts (Adams, 1997)
no sufficient evidence to warrant use with students with or without disabilities (Mock & Kauffman, 2005)

31. Delusion of Full Inclusion
A mainstream FULL INCLUSION setting
downplays need for specific instruction
holds out the false hope that the Full Inclusion Movement will result in better instruction for students with disabilities while undercutting fiscal support for special education.
(Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)

32. Students with disabilities should be treated like all other students.
Monk and Kauffman (2005) indicate
the “delusion of full inclusion” includes at least one of the following assumptions, if not all of them:
If all students receive instruction in the same setting, they will receive the same opportunities to learn.
Fair treatment of students with disabilities can be achieved only when the students are in the same place as student without disabilities.
Students with disabilities should be treated like all other students.
(see Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000, p. 67, for the last statement of the last assumption)

33. misinterpret research findings
THOSE FOR
FULL INCLUSION
ignore
and
misinterpret research findings
(Kauffman, 1989; Monk & Kauffman, 2005)

34. “pseudoscience”
Does Full Inclusion claim itself as a scientific revolution?
Does Full Inclusion withstand careful scrutiny?
(Sherman, 2001)

35. “noxious delusion” changing the place in which teaching is preferred
use of a “mainstream” setting
considered by proponents of Full Inclusion Movement as “the place to be”
better than what is or can be offered in a separate, special setting
(e.g., Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); Kavale & Forness, 2000); Stage & Quiroz, 1997).

36. The Full Inclusion Movement fits criteria for fraud or quackery:
contrary to common sense
inconsistent with what we know about disabilities
lacking credible supporting evidence
Worrall (1990) ; (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 113)

37. FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT ?
WHAT ABOUT
R E S E A R C H supporting
OPPOSITION
to the
FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT ?

38. OPPOSITION to the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
“delivery of specialized intervention services within regular classrooms highly problematic” (Walker & Bullis 1991,p. 84).
effective teaching of a child is delayed or denied by the placement (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Palmer, Fuller, Arora, & Nelson, 2001).
problematic behavior triggers include
interaction with peers
unpredictable reinforcement schedules
environments filled with desks, chairs, books, and many other objects (Jacobson, Foxx, Mulick, 2005, p. 115)
general education teachers would find educating some students troublesome

39. OPPOSITION to FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
educational practice changes in the absence of empirical support have proven harmful to student progress
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005, p 119).
the Full Inclusion Movement is seen as harmful when there are no special education programs for students with severe disabilities
(Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995)

40. PARENTAL VIEWPOINTS
Parents of children with severe disabilities found general education to be unhelpful for their children.
(Crockett & Kauffman, 1998, 1999).

41. Mother of a child with autism . . .
in a G.E. classroom “so much is counterintuitive in the treatment of autism that her son Daniel’s general education teachers often hinder rather than help him learn to cope with his classroom environment.”
Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p 180).

42. Parent of two children with disabilities . . .
considered “mainstreaming as something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Like any other fad, it is being evangelized as a cure-all. It isn’t. It is terrific in some cases. In others, it is child abuse.” (Palmer, et. al. 2001, p. 482)

43. STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION
The Delusion of Full Inclusion authors make reference to Seymour Sarason’s (2001) parallel comparison between society’s initial responses to the virus that causes AIDS with the ignorance and irrelevant claims made in relationship to the Full Inclusion Movement.
Seymour Bernard Sarason passed away January 2010
Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Yale University, where he taught from 1945 to 1989.
He is the author of over forty books and is considered to be one of the most
significant researchers in education and
educational psychology in the United States.
The primary focus of his work was on education reform in the United States.

44. Seymour Sarason’s Comparison
INITIAL RESPONSES to VIRUS that CAUSES AIDS
FULL INCLUSION
MOVEMENT
used prior experiences to understand
rife with ignorance
dealing with irrelevant
claims of cause and
maltreatment
involved nonsequiturs
presented oversimplifications
involved common
willful ignorance
The authors of The Delusion of Full Inclusion, Mock and Kauffman, note that
Sarason makes a parallel comparison between society’s initial responses to the virus that causes AIDS with the ignorance and irrelevant claims made in relationship to the Full Inclusion Movement.
Sarason (2001)

45. NONSEQUITUR- does not follow logically from anything previously said . . .
Advocates of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT argue for policies unchecked by empirical science. . .
“Without a properly rendered research base, policy analysis becomes policy advocacy because reason alone and the
influence of values goes unchecked” (Kavale, Fuchs, and Sruggs, 1994)
“Argument unaccompanied by reliable scientific evidence is
simply propaganda.” (Sasso, 2001)
Merriam-Webster’s definition
Nonsequitur
(nan-SEK-wa-tuer)
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises;
specif: a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said
We must then consider PRIDE, CONVICTION, PROPAGANDA, IMPASSIONED PLEAS, and EMOTIONAL APPEAL that the Full Inclusion Movement ADVOCATES build their case on.
SPECIAL EDUCATION has not only been based on applied sciences of medicine and education but also on the idea of SOCIAL JUSTICE (Mock, Jakubecy, & Kauffman, 2002).
Social advocates organized and worked to secure federal policies that provided both protection and opportunity for individuals with disabilities (Hallahan & Mock, 2003).
It’s easy to see how pride and conviction drive this more than observable truth. (p116)

46. OVERSIMPLIFICATION with ADVOCATES for the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
seeing it as a moral matter of civil rights and likening current special education placement options to racial segregation, apartheid and slavery.
OPPONENTS of
the Full Inclusion Movement
state Special Education and matters such as these “are built on entirely different legal, moral, and educational premises.”
(see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Kauffman, 2002; Kauffman & Lloyd, 1995).
Segregation was viewed as a moral issue, and the expected immediate change was OVERSIMPLIFIED.
Comparing legalized segregation to the various placement options available for special education students
Racial segregation and special education are built on entirely different legal, moral, and educational premises (see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Kauffman, 2002; Kauffman & Lloyd, 1995).
Even with the 1954 Supreme Court decision ordering desegregation, our societal and school levels are still faced with issues of segregation today.
This relates to the “misapplication of the landmark U. S. Supreme Court case, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka” (see Kauffman, 2002; Kauffman & Lloyd, 1995).
Defines the issue of FULL INCLUSION as a matter of civil rights (Gallagher, 1998; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Stainback et al., 1994; Stainback, Stainback & Stefanich, 1996).
Advocates of FULL INCLUSION have likened “current special education to both apartheid (Lipsky & Gartner, 1987) and slavery” (Stainback & Stainback, 1988).

47. OVERSIMPLIFICATION Schools-Students-Research
Difference of FULL INCLUSION in elementary, middle and high schools
Inclusion implementation is different at various levels
Imbalance of research
Resistance to change
Teachers
Students
Instruction
(Mock & Kauffman, 2005)

48. WILLFUL IGNORANCE with research reviewed so far,
the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT
is based
on false premises.
(Mock and Kauffman, 2005)

49. WILLFUL IGNORANCE FALSE PREMISES
Inclusion in general education classes achieve better outcomes than pullout class
Separation of special education students causes them to fall further behind general education peers
(Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, et al., 2001)

50. WILLFUL IGNORANCE Efficacy studies used to discredit special education practices compromised by methodological shortcomings
consistency within group membership (Ysseldyke and Bielinski, 2002)
as well as,
control for teacher effects
established criterion level of instructional performance
use of standardized measures
use of same measures between pretest and posttest
control for sample heterogeneity
use of the correct unit of analysis
reported inflated treatment outcomes
reported unreliable treatment outcomes
(Simmerman and Swanson, 2001)
When a research outcome demonstrated lack of efficacy for resource room models then that was impetus for the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT (Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, et al., 2001).
WHAT WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF IS THAT
with studies suggesting that students in general education classes achieved better outcomes than that of students in pull-out classes the standard for empirical research of “random assignment of treatment groups” was violated.
LD student were served in general education classrooms while more disabled peers served in resource rooms.
with efficacy studies suggesting special education practices cause students with disabilities to fall further behind general education peers Ysseldyke and Bielinski (2002) found this assertion untenable (or unsound/invalid) (Mock and Kauffman, 2005).
In monitoring a group of students that remained classified as such over a 5 year period, researchers found rate of progress remained relatively constant.
When this group was modified to account for students placing in and out of the LD classification, the MEAN ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL DROPPED and the gap widened.
Essentially Ysseldyke and Bielinski explained that students with higher achievement placed out and were replaced by newly identified students with lower achievement which resulted in LOWER MEAN ACHIEVEMENT for the special education group. Therefore, they determined that special education group membership should not be a focus in determining achievement trends. (Mock and Kauffman, 2005)
So as Lipsky and Gartner (1997) indicated that special education students participating in separate special education systems had limited outcomes—related to dropout, graduation, postsecondary education and training, employment, and residential independence -These failures provided a strong basis for change.

51. CRITICAL CHALLENGE view and treat difference . . .
for students with disabilities, is how we
view and treat difference . . .
The challenge is to not ONLY have the individual feel included and accepted BUT ALSO
have the individual learn to read or learn to feed oneself.
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE of a disability does not cause the disability to disappear.
TREATMENTS used for one do not necessarily work for another.
PLACEMENT for one does not necessarily work for another.
Any label that applies to ALL rather than a subset of the population perpetuates the incorrect assumption that students with a disability (including LD) do not differ significantly from the general population (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995; Kauffman, 2002).

52. The FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT may be popular because of the appearance of being “a road to quick and easy success” which ends the “separation from the mainstream” and as a result is “the dissolution of special education as a separate, identifiable entity.”
(Monk & Kauffman, 2005; Kauffman, 1999a, 2002; Zigmond, 1997)

53. But to really meet the needs of students with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, then the task requires . . .
Great effort to meet needs
Funding
Trained and effective teachers
Individualized programs
Appropriate placements
Use of systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment

54. through treatment that is different (and therefore unequal).
Special education is by nature paradoxical, in that it is a way of achieving equal opportunities
through treatment that is different
(and therefore unequal).
(Monk and Kauffman, 2005)

55. Without different treatment, unfairness is assured . . .
(Monk & Kauffman, 2005).

56. . . . to maximize equity, we offer special education to students with disabilities.
(see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Hockenbury, Kauffman, & Hallahan, ).

57. of instruction itself-
“Although special education surely needs significant improvement,
it is the improvement
of instruction itself-
not the place in which it is offered-
that is critical.”
(Kauffman, 1999a, 2002; Zigmond, 1997)

58. INCLUSION IS BELONGING
It is not a program . . .
It is not just a place . . .

59. QUESTIONS or COMMENTS

60. RESOURCES
Fardell, Sarah. (2012). eHow. Retrieved from (5/30/12).
Mock, Devery R. and James M. Kauffman. (2005). The Delusion of Full Inclusion. Jacobson, Foxx, & Mulick (Ed.), Controversial Therapies for Developmental Disabilities – Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice (pp ). NYC: Routledge, reprint 2010.
 Wright, Diana Browning. (2003). Teaching and Learning Trainings Positive Environments-Network of Trainers. Retrieved from of.Nine.pdf