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 2012- Dr. Kenneth Reeve

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 94-142 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

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

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 http://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD  

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

INCLUSION IN ACTION FOR AND AGAINST http://www.google.com/search?q=inclusion+classroom&hl=en&domains=seab.envmed.rochester.edu&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2zjBT8KZA4i06gG4wOC0Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CGUQsAQ&biw=866&bih=573 Website that provides 24 plus pages of sources for information for and against Inclusion. Some do refer to Full Inclusion.

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 http://www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html#ixzz1wLeaUefD

Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade.” VIDEO Teachers Network "INCLUSION: Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) in 3rd Grade.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLezaO949TE&feature=related 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

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

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

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.  

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).

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

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)

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.

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)

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

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-

COOPERATIVE LEARNING Share experiences

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?”

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)

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)

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 2003- Positive Environments-Network of Trainers (PENT) Director/School Psychologist/Behavior Analyst

CURRICULUM ADAPTATIONS Accommodations Modifications

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

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

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 

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

“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).

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)

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

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

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)

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

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).

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)

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.

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)

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)

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).

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)

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

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)

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.

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).

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)

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

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)

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

. . . to maximize equity, we offer special education to students with disabilities. (see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Hockenbury, Kauffman, & Hallahan, 1999-2000).

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)

INCLUSION IS BELONGING It is not a program . . . It is not just a place . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9-XX9227ek&feature=relmfu

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS

RESOURCES Fardell, Sarah. (2012). eHow. Retrieved from http:www.ehow.com/info_7966988_arguments-against-full-inclusion-classroom.html (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. 113-128). NYC: Routledge, reprint 2010.    Wright, Diana Browning. (2003). Teaching and Learning Trainings Positive Environments-Network of Trainers. Retrieved from http://acts.lausd.net/BTSA/Documents/Ed%20Spec/Grid. of.Nine.pdf