Inclusion Series- Help! Get Me Out of Here: Inclusion in the High School Environment

By Dr. Angila Moffitt

This issue of NASET’s Inclusion series was written by Dr. Angila Moffitt. Section 1412 of The Individuals with Disabilities Education 2004 (IDEA 2004) is a law that ensure students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) will be educated with nondisabled students in the least restrictive environment (LRE).  The law ensures that students with disabilities receive an education in the general education classroom alongside the general education students.  The interpretation of this law has led to the creation of the practice of inclusion, where the special education students and general education students are combined in the same classroom.  The problem lies with the interpretation and meaning behind the word inclusion and once put into practice has different outcomes based upon factors such as teacher attitudes.  The purpose of this article is to look deeper into the interpretation, meaning, and teacher attitude toward inclusion practices.

Abstract

Section 1412 of The Individuals with Disabilities Education 2004 (IDEA 2004) is a law that ensure students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) will be educated with nondisabled students in the least restrictive environment (LRE).  The law ensures that students with disabilities receive an education in the general education classroom alongside the general education students.  The interpretation of this law has led to the creation of the practice of inclusion, where the special education students and general education students are combined in the same classroom.  The problem lies with the interpretation and meaning behind the word inclusion and once put into practice has different outcomes based upon factors such as teacher attitudes.  The purpose of this article is to look deeper into the interpretation, meaning, and teacher attitude toward inclusion practices.

Keywords: Special education, inclusion practices, least restricted environment, teacher attitude

Introduction

As a brand-new high school special education teacher, straight out of college, I was on a mission to teach the Level 1 (instructional strategist 1) special education students.  Full of joy and hope for my students, I was slapped with a list of over 25 students on IEP’s and told that I would be assisting in a freshmen English 101 inclusive setting class.  With high hopes of what the semester would look like and how I would be assisting in the classroom, I found out soon enough that my vision of what inclusion, least restrictive and co-teaching would look like was completely mistaken.

English 101 consisted of a classroom of 20 students with 7 of those students with IEP goals in reading and writing.  As a spend time in the class, I immediately observed how the students on IEP’s slouched in their chairs, hoping not to be noticed or called upon by me or the English teacher.  Never raising their hands or wanting to participate…those were my students.  When I talked directly to any of students in the classroom, the students would shy away from communicating with me because I was labeled as the special education teacher and it was silently assumed that if a student talked to me, they must be a special education student.  Not only was I labeled as the special education teacher, so were the special education students when they were found out by the general education students. 

Hoping to have a great relationship with the English teacher and to create a co-teaching relationship, I soon learned that our teaching and personalities were extremely different.  The English teacher was direct, strict and to the point with the students while my personality was fun, flexible, and welcoming.  I learned quickly within the first 5 minutes of meeting the English teacher, that she viewed me as the para educator in the classroom who was required to be present.  As a side comment, I was directly told that I was not to give the lower-level students answers to any worksheet or test nor was I to do the student’s homework. 

As the special education teacher, I soon learned through actions and comments by the general education teacher that I was not wanted nor needed in the English 101 classroom.  I was directly told by the general education teacher that special education students in her classroom would either pass or fail just like the other kids and they did not deserve “special treatment or anyone cradling them through the course.”

Reactions from the special education students came to me when I was meeting alone outside of the classroom with the students one-on-one.  Comments such as “why am I in that English course,” “the teacher hates me,” “she knows that I am dumb,” “can’t you get me out of that course,” and “I can’t do the homework because it is too hard, so why should I even try.”

IDEA and Inclusion

Section 1412 of The Individuals with Disabilities Education 2004 (IDEA 2004) is a law that ensure students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) will be educated with nondisabled students in the least restrictive environment (LRE).  The law ensures that students with disabilities receive an education in the general education classroom alongside the general education students.

What a great law that protects the rights of students with disabilities and nothing like fighting for the rights of the disabled student.  But what does a classroom look like when we throw it all together… general education teacher with a set curriculum, special education teacher, general education students, and IEP students.  We get a mix of students, abilities, and attitudes toward this law put into practice. What ensures this formula will succeed or fail?

The Literature About Inclusion Practices

Based upon my negative experiences in an inclusive classroom as a special education teacher, it made me stop to take a deeper look at the confusion behind the term inclusion.  The word inclusion is not included in the IDEA nor in the United States legislation and was not included in “The Education for All Handicapped Children Act” but rather the word “Least Restricted Environment (LRE)” was used.  Evidence shows that the poor definition and vague description of inclusion has led to various interpretations of the word and concept (Francisco, 2020).  The term inclusion is used globally yet not included in the policies of the United States.  Perhaps the terms LRE and FAPE refer to inclusion but maybe the policymakers had their own version of the law that has been misinterpreted by stakeholders, which has led to the wrong standards and guidelines being used to evaluate the success of inclusion practices when these were not designed for this purpose thus, affecting validity of inclusion practices (Francisco, 2020).  The idea behind the misinterpretation or creation of too many varying definitions of inclusion practices signifies a lack of clear definitions, standards, guidelines, and goals as the root cause of confusion among stakeholders, students, teachers, and policy makers.

Thuneberg, et. al. (2013) conducted a case study to explore the idea that when new policies especially pertaining to special education are adopted by legislation, that partial and gradual conceptual adaptions happen to the new policy.  Thuneberg (2013) found that new policies fight against previous traditional educational practices and tendencies, which make the new policy at high risk for failure or unintended misconceptions.  Norwich, (1993 as cited in Thuneberg, 2013) who was known for studying the dilemmatic nature of social thinking stated that “the coexistence of old ways of thinking and doing and the attempt to formulate something new constitutes a dilemma (p. 38).  “In terms of special education there is one universal, ideological, and conceptual dilemma:  How to give individuals support without using concepts that also separate certain students with special needs from others who, at some points are not recognized as having special needs so in other words, how can we reform only a part of a well-functioning educational system; a part which is our case can be called a special educational complex” (Thuneberg, et al., 2013, p. 38)?  The conclusion to Thuneberg et. al.’s (2013) study found that the strategy of applying labels such as inclusion, to the field of special education has increasingly spread to terms with different meanings ranging from “subtle nuances to profound differences” (Thuneberg, et. al., 2013, p. 54).  Thuneberg’s research confirms that word and the meaning of words can be interrupted in different ways, which makes me think that maybe there is more to be discovered in terms of what makes inclusion practices successful and unsuccessful.

Teacher Attitudes vs. Success Rates

Most of the research around the success of inclusion practices examine the disabled student’s success but often lacks the effects or attitudes of inclusion practices on the general education students or the teachers.  If teachers are to implement and create a successful inclusion environment, then their attitudes toward inclusion practices should play a vital role in the success.  The outcome of a recent research study by Tim Saloviita (2020) found that through teacher surveys completed by 4567 elementary teachers in Finland, that there was very low positive support toward inclusion practices because of the lack of follow through from the legal guarantee that teachers would be adequately supported.  The study showed that teachers felt the lack of support led to their negative attitudes toward inclusion.

Likewise in a recent longitudinal cross-lagged analysis study by researchers Hannu Savolainen, Olli-Pekka Malinen & Susanne Schwab (2020) that examined if teacher efficacy predicted teacher attitude toward inclusion, found that teacher attitudes were neutral and rather positive.  A more concerning finding from the study found that teachers had concerns about inclusion practices especially when it comes to managing student challenging behaviors in the classroom that comes with inclusion practices.  This concerning finding showed the hesitation for teachers to fully accept inclusion practices in the classroom.

Expanding upon previous research on teacher attitudes toward inclusion, Monsen et. al. (2014) gathered data from ninety-five teachers who completed a questionnaire about their attitude toward inclusion, learning environments, support, and stress.  The findings of this study revealed that teacher attitudes had a direct impact on how the classroom learning environment was managed and what supports were received.  The teachers with positive attitudes toward inclusion seemed to have greater levels of satisfaction compared to the teachers with less positive attitudes toward inclusion practices. 

All three of these studies support the idea that a teacher’s attitude toward inclusion plays a big part in the interpretation, meaning, and implementation of the definition of inclusion practices.  Legislation can create a policy, but it is the interpretation of meaning combined with the attitude of the teachers that are carrying out the actions of the meaning that determine the success of the practice of inclusion.  

Resources

Fletcher, J.M. The effects of inclusion on classmates of students with special needs: The case of serious emotional problems. Educ. Financ. Policy 2009, 4, 278–299.

Fletcher, J. Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems on test scores in early elementary school. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2010, 29, 69–83.

Gilmore, A.F. Has inclusion gone too far? Weighing its effects on students with disabilities, their peers, and teachers. Educ. Next 2018, 18, 8–17.

Gottfried, M.A. Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2014, 36, 20–43.

Hannu Savolainen, Olli-Pekka Malinen & Susanne Schwab (2020) Teacher efficacy predicts teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion – a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826.

IDEA-the individuals with disabilities act. (2014, May). Retrieved from https://idea.ed.gov/explore/home.

Kart, A., & Kart, M. (2021). Academic and Social Effects of Inclusion on Students without Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. Education Sciences, 11(1), 16. doi:10.3390/educsci11010016.

Saloviita, T. (2020). Teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of students with support needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(1), 64–73. doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12466.

Thuneberg, H., Hautama?ki J, Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Vainikainen, M.-P., & Hilasvuori, T. (2014). Conceptual change in adopting the nationwide special education strategy in finland. Journal of Educational Change, 15(1), 37–56. doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9213-x.

About the Author

 Dr. Angila Moffitt is a graduate of Evangel University and the University of Phoenix with degrees in Educational Leadership, Curriculum & Instruction leading to certification in both special education K-12 and general education K-8.  Dr. Moffitt was an elementary principal for several years and now works as a professor for Northwestern College and American College of Education, where she loves training and guiding educators.