Presentation on theme: "CONTROVERSIAL THERAPIES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice John W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, and James."— Presentation transcript:
1CONTROVERSIAL 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. KauffmanChapter Presentation byLeslie MozulayABA 553- Assessing Autism InterventionsSummer Session A Dr. Kenneth Reeve
2BACKGROUND 1975 – U.S. Legislation The Education for All Handicapped Children Actwhich gives all children regardless of disability theright to a free public education.later referred to as Public Law1990 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
3I N C L U S I O N DOES IT WORK? IF SO, HOW? IF NOT, WHY NOT? Request comments, opinions
4INCLUSION vs. FULL INCLUSION Inclusion: educating disabled children part time in regular classroomsFull inclusion: educating disabled children full time in regular classroomsno time outside regular classroomsalways learn in an environment not tailored for the disabledexpected to keep up with the pace of non-disabled students Read more: Arguments Against Full Inclusion in the Classroom | eHow.com
5Consideration of F U L L I N C L U S I O N from the viewpoint of . . . ScientistSocial AdvocateLegislatorSchool Board MemberSchool AdministratorBehavioristTeacher- General EducationTeacher- Special EducationAide- ParaprofessionalParentStudentSiblingOther
6INCLUSION 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.
7Dr. Alan Harchik of theMay 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
8Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade.” VIDEOTeachers Network"INCLUSION:Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT)in 3rd Grade.”Inclusion Schoolmeans special education as well general education are taught by two teachers all day longcollaborative team teachingsmall and large groupssmaller teacher to student ratiodifferentiated instructionmodify and enrich curriculumsense of community allows all children to learn and grow togetherPhilosophy--- all deserve to learn IN LREhonors all learning styleslearn all people are differentall have different strengthsall need different things to do our bestfair is not always equaland anyone can learn from anyone else
9INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade RECAP VIDEOINCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd GradeGather information from class.
10RECAP OF VIDEO INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade means special education as well general education are taught by two teachers all day longcollaborative team teachingsmall and large groups for smaller teacher to student ratiodifferentiated instructionmodified and enriched curriculumsense of community allows all children to learn and grow togetherphilosophy--- all deserve to learn in LREhonors all learning stylesopportunity to learn all people are differentall have different strengthsall need different things to do our bestfair is not always equaland anyone can learn from anyone else
11REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE of the 1980s forerunner of the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENTelimination of the necessity of special education for at least many, if not most (Dunn,1968;Deno,1970)assumptions includedall students are very much alikemany 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.
12FULL 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).
13Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS Cost factorsSeparation from mainstreamand Self EsteemMisidentification of studentsQuality of servicesContinuum of alternative placementsPolicy making
14COSTS of Special Education As more students with disabilities can be served in general education classes by regular teachers, FIM saves on cost forspace (separate classes)staff (special teachers)intensified instruction(lower pupil-teacher ratios)(Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 114)COSTSome 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)
15Full 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 harmfulThe place in which instruction occurs- not instruction itself- has become the central issue in special education(Crockett & Kauffman, 1999).nothing pervasively wrong with special educationStill utilize interventionsStill need special education training and research(Blackman, 1992, p. 29, italics in original)And that by just changing a location instruction will improvedetermined? This is no joke—Current practice of changing a student’s location is often what is considered the solution.
16Full Inclusion Movement ATTACKS MISIDENTIFICATION and QUALITY OF SERVICES of special education studentsConcerns with students not being able to reach their true potential becausedisabilities are not properly definedinstructional practices are fragmentedteachers have low expectations and poor trainingstudents 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)
17Full 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, institutionsCAP stresses Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)CAP requires provision for supplementary servicesCAP promotes opportunities for student to interact with peers who are nondisabled, to the extent appropriateIndividual needs are to be addressed.Placement to take place in environment that is MOST APPROPRIATE
18To accomplish FULL INCLUSION Lipsky and Gartner (1997) suggested, “ use of instructional strategies that experienced and qualified teachers use for all children.”COOPERATIVE LEARNINGCURRICULAR ADAPTATIONSMODIFICATIONSACCOMMODATIONSWHOLE LANGUAGEPAUSE and ASK CLASS ABOUT EXPERIENCES withCOOPERATIVE LEARNING-
20COOPERATIVE LEARNING12 studies were reviewed by Tateyama-Sniezek (1990)INDEPENDENT VARIABLE= cooperative learningDEPENDENT VARIABLE= academic achievementOVER 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 learningDEPENDENT VARIABLE= academic achievementFOUND “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 byMcMaster 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?”
21CONCLUSION 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)
22The 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)
23CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS NINE TYPESQUANTITYTIMELEVEL OF SUPPORTINPUTDIFFICULTYOUTPUTPARTICIPATIONALTERNATE GOALSSUBSTITUTE CURRICULUMDiana 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
25ADAPTATIONS MODIFICATION ACCOMMODATION Provides equal access to taking in information for learning and allows students to use different ways to demonstrate knowledgeDOES NOT alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject areaGrading is the sameMODIFICATIONCurriculum 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 areaGrading is different
26EXAMPLES MODIFICATIONS ACCOMMODATIONS seating in room extra time level of support (peer, aide, teacher)verbal rather than written responsesaddress learning styles by altering assignmentsvisual aidesmanipulativesalter goals or outcome expectationslower the criteria for gradingstudent works on different skill area (addition instead of multiplication)reduce amount of work expected (10 spelling words instead of 20)allow use of calculator
27Weak, stress reducing treatments CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONSused in response to problems for students with mild to severe disabilities can be seen asQuack remediesNot cure-allsWeak, stress reducing treatments(Worrall, 1990)Referring back to Worrall, 1990In regard to curriculum adaptations in response to problems for students with mild to severe disabilities
28What Full Inclusion Movement advocates fail to see . . . how EFFECTIVE, if at all, an adaptation may bethat 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
291980s WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH in FULL INCLUSION CLASSROOMS abandons specific skill instruction - decoding written languagefocuses on reading process as a whole- reading as using languagerejects value of quantitative evidence of effectivenessadopted in absence of any credible evidence of its efficacy (Adams, 1995; Slaving, 2001)
30After implementation of WHOLE LANGUAGE RESULTS of 1992 and 1994 National Assessment of Education Progressmore 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)
31Delusion of Full Inclusion A mainstream FULL INCLUSION settingdownplays need for specific instructionholds 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)
32Students with disabilities should be treated like all other students. Monk and Kauffman (2005) indicatethe “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)
33misinterpret research findings THOSE FORFULL INCLUSIONignoreandmisinterpret 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” settingconsidered 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).
36The Full Inclusion Movement fits criteria for fraud or quackery: contrary to common senseinconsistent with what we know about disabilitieslacking credible supporting evidenceWorrall (1990) ; (Monk & Kauffman, 2005, p. 113)
37FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT ? WHAT ABOUTR E S E A R C H supportingOPPOSITIONto theFULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT ?
38OPPOSITION 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 includeinteraction with peersunpredictable reinforcement schedulesenvironments filled with desks, chairs, books, and many other objects (Jacobson, Foxx, Mulick, 2005, p. 115)general education teachers would find educating some students troublesome
39OPPOSITION 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)
40PARENTAL VIEWPOINTSParents of children with severe disabilities found general education to be unhelpful for their children.(Crockett & Kauffman, 1998, 1999).
41Mother 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).
42Parent 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)
43STRENGTH 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 2010Professor 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 mostsignificant researchers in education andeducational psychology in the United States.The primary focus of his work was on education reform in the United States.
44Seymour Sarason’s Comparison INITIAL RESPONSES to VIRUS that CAUSES AIDSFULL INCLUSIONMOVEMENTused prior experiences to understandrife with ignorancedealing with irrelevantclaims of cause andmaltreatmentinvolved nonsequiturspresented oversimplificationsinvolved commonwillful ignoranceThe authors of The Delusion of Full Inclusion, Mock and Kauffman, note thatSarason 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)
45NONSEQUITUR- 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 theinfluence of values goes unchecked” (Kavale, Fuchs, and Sruggs, 1994)“Argument unaccompanied by reliable scientific evidence issimply propaganda.” (Sasso, 2001)Merriam-Webster’s definitionNonsequitur(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 consequent2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously saidWe 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)
46OVERSIMPLIFICATION 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 ofthe Full Inclusion Movementstate 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 studentsRacial 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).
47OVERSIMPLIFICATION Schools-Students-Research Difference of FULL INCLUSION in elementary, middle and high schoolsInclusion implementation is different at various levelsImbalance of researchResistance to changeTeachersStudentsInstruction(Mock & Kauffman, 2005)
48WILLFUL IGNORANCE with research reviewed so far, the FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENTis basedon false premises.(Mock and Kauffman, 2005)
49WILLFUL IGNORANCE FALSE PREMISES Inclusion in general education classes achieve better outcomes than pullout classSeparation of special education students causes them to fall further behind general education peers(Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, et al., 2001)
50WILLFUL IGNORANCE Efficacy studies used to discredit special education practices compromised by methodological shortcomingsconsistency within group membership (Ysseldyke and Bielinski, 2002)as well as,control for teacher effectsestablished criterion level of instructional performanceuse of standardized measuresuse of same measures between pretest and posttestcontrol for sample heterogeneityuse of the correct unit of analysisreported inflated treatment outcomesreported 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 THATwith 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.
51CRITICAL CHALLENGE view and treat difference . . . for students with disabilities, is how weview and treat difference . . .The challenge is to not ONLY have the individual feel included and accepted BUT ALSOhave 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).
52The 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)
53But to really meet the needs of students with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, then the task requires . . .Great effort to meet needsFundingTrained and effective teachersIndividualized programsAppropriate placementsUse of systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment
54through treatment that is different (and therefore unequal). Special education is by nature paradoxical, in that it is a way of achieving equal opportunitiesthrough treatment that is different(and therefore unequal).(Monk and Kauffman, 2005)
55Without 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, ).
57of instruction itself- “Although special education surely needs significant improvement,it is the improvementof instruction itself-not the place in which it is offered-that is critical.”(Kauffman, 1999a, 2002; Zigmond, 1997)
58INCLUSION IS BELONGING It is not a program . . .It is not just a place . . .
60RESOURCESFardell, 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