A University in Missouri, College in Missouri - Submitted to...students with mild to moderate...

CLASS WITH-IN-A CLASS 1

Running Head: CLASS WITH-IN-A CLASS

SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT IMPRESSIONS OF THEIR CLASS WITH-IN-A

CLASS EXPERIENCE AT A RURAL HIGH SCHOOL

By

Andrea E. Westover

Submitted to

The Faculty of the Educational Specialist Program

Northwest Missouri State University

Department of Educational Leadership

College of Education and Human Services

Maryville, MO 64468

Field Study Committee Members

Dr. Phil Messner

Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for

61-724 Field Study

Fall 2012

November 3, 2012


ABSTRACT

This study analyzed the pressures and requirements placed on schools by state and

federal mandates and laws to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in

the least restrictive environment (LRE) for disabled students. For the Polo R-VII High

School, a rural school, special education (SPED) student impressions were collected to

measure the impact of an inclusive model of LRE, class-with-in-a-class (CWC), on their

success in accessing regular education curriculum with their non-disabled peers.

The purpose of the study was to determine SPED student perceptions of their

academic achievement and social acceptance within the CWC inclusive model. Student

perceptions are an important factor in determining if the CWC model is effective in

providing support services to students with disabilities at Polo R-VII. The study group

included 21, 9th

-12th

grade SPED students. This study will show that students vary in

their overall view of the CWC model in providing support services, but being included in

the regular education classroom (LRE) with their peers is preferred to a SPED resource

room. Student perceptions and opinions vary depending on their disability, reading grade

equivalent, grade level, exposure to the model, and sex.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………….

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………..

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY……………………..

Introduction

Background, Issues and Concerns

Practice Under Investigation

Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of Study

Research Questions

Anticipated Benefits of Study

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE……………

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY…

Field Study Methods

Research Design

Study Group Description

Data Collection Methods and Instrumentation

Statistical Data Analysis

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA……………..

Presentation of the Data Analysis


CHAPTER FIVE: OVERVIEW, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS…

Discussion of Findings

Conclusions

Recommendations

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..


CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

This study examines Polo R-VII High School students’ perceptions of their

academic achievement, social acceptance, and overall success in the regular education

setting for CWC. This study includes data and student perceptions of CWC from the

08-09, 09-10, 10-11, and 11-12 school years (SY). The students’ sex, grade level,

disabilities and reading ability are noted, in that these factors may affect individual

student perceptions. Also, noted in this study are the number of CWC classes

students participated in at the time of this survey; student’s perceptions may differ

due to change in content or teacher.

The report contains the following elements: 1) Background, issue and concerns,

2) Practice Under Investigation, 3) Statement of the Problem, 4) Purpose of the

Study, 5) Research Questions, 6) Benefits of the Study, 7) Review of Literature,

8) Research Methods, 9) Findings, 10) Conclusion, and 11) Recommendations.

Background, issues and concerns.

At Polo High School, the CWC inclusion model was adopted and first

implemented during the 2008-2009 school year. Prior to this change, there were only

two options for SPED students: complete inclusion in regular education or SPED

resource room for all core-content coursework. Having only two options for student

placement and scheduling was problematic and inflexible to a wide variety of student


needs. Meeting such individual student needs, in a small rural high school with

between 100-150 students (08-09, 09-10, and 10-11 SYs), was difficult due to limited

resources (i.e. curriculum/texts, classrooms, support personnel, etc.). The goal was to

push students out into the regular education setting for CWC in science, social

studies, and later math courses. For the 11-12 and 12-13 SYs Polo has advanced to

mainstreaming SPED students in science and social studies classes and currently only

provide CWC for math. Students continue to have access to the SPED resource room

for Language Arts and Study Skills (study hall hour) for more modified, individual

support, and instruction.

This change was motivated by the need for a more flexible LRE continuum of

services. Also, there was a concern about the “No Child Left Behind” mandate to

have “highly qualified” teachers for all content areas. (NCLB; U.S. Department of

Education [USDOE], 2002)

Special education teachers’ certifications are K-12 for specific and/or cross

categorical disability ranges but are not content specific, so cannot meet the “highly

qualified” mandate. Having SPED resource rooms where all core-content areas were

taught by the SPED teacher was no longer acceptable. Under state certification

guidelines some SPED teachers are able to add content certifications to meet this

standard, but it is impossible to expect SPED teachers to be “highly qualified” in all

high school content areas.

Initially there were concerns both from teachers and students at Polo R-VII. Some

teachers were uncooperative and oppositional, not wanting to co-teach or have

another teacher in their room. Also, teachers were concerned with grading policies


and responsibility for SPED student scores on state testing (MAP and/or EOC).

Lastly, the SPED teachers were concerned about losing control (classroom, content,

etc.) and having to work collaboratively with other teaching staff.

Some SPED students were afraid of their regular education peers; that they would

be considered stupid, or be made fun of. Of course they were also afraid that they

would be unable to do the work or meet the regular education teacher expectations.

With this push to move SPED resource students out into regular education, it was

felt important to have supports for not only the SPED students but also the regular

education teachers, for this change to be successful. The CWC inclusion model was

implemented to provide these supports.

Practice Under Investigation

CWC is a universally practiced inclusion teaching model. In this model, a special

education teacher provides supports with a core-content, “highly qualified” teacher.

Both the core-content teacher and special education teacher support all students in the

classroom. This investigation will determine whether SPED students perceive

academic achievement and social acceptance by their peers under the CWC model.

Statement of the Problem

There is a lack of evidence showing SPED student perceptions of their experience

with inclusion. Students’ with disabilities should have a voice in sharing their

perceptions of the CWC inclusion model and whether its continuation at Polo High

school is appropriate in meeting their special needs.


Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if the CWC model of inclusion is

appropriate and successful, as experienced by SPED students, in providing FAPE in

the LRE, at Polo High School.

Research Questions

The following research questions were constructed to investigate the problem.

RQ1: Do SPED students, at Polo High School, have a positive experience

(academically and socially) with the CWC model of inclusion?

RQ2: Is CWC an appropriate model of inclusion in providing special needs

students at Polo High School, a rural district, the Least Restrictive Environment

for instruction?

RQ3: Should the CWC inclusive model be continued at Polo R-VII High School?

Anticipated Benefits of the Study

This study will provide the Polo R-VII school district a better understanding of special

education students’ perceptions of their CWC experience at Polo High School.

Definition of Terms

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)— means that a student who has a disability should

have the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers, to the greatest extent

appropriate. They should have access to the general education curriculum, or any other

program that non-disabled peers would be able to access.

Class-with-in-a-class (CWC)—is a responsible inclusion model of service delivery for

students with mild to moderate disabilities. CWC is a collaborative teaching model which

pairs a special educator and a general educator. These two professionals co-plan and co-

teach. The general educator is the curriculum expert and the special educator is the

strategic expert when co-planning.

Inclusion—students with special educational needs spend most or all of their time with

non-disabled students

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum


The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)— is a United States federal law

that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education,

and related services to children with disabilities. It addresses the educational needs of

children with disabilities from birth to age 18 or 21 in cases that involve 14 specified

categories of disability.

Learning Disabled (LD)— is when a person has significant learning problems in an

academic area and meets eligibility criteria under IDEA.

Other Health Impaired (OHI)— means having limited strength, vitality, or alertness,

including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness

with respect to the educational environment, that—

(i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia,

lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette

syndrome; and

(ii) Adversely affects a child’s educational performance. [§300.8(c)(9)]

Language Impaired (LI)— is diagnosed when a child's language does not develop

normally and the difficulties cannot be accounted for by generally slow development

(mental retardation), physical abnormality of the speech apparatus, autistic disorder,

acquired brain damage or hearing loss.

Intellectual Disability (ID)— a broad concept that ranges from mental retardation to

cognitive deficits. Intellectual disabilities may appear at any age. Mental retardation is a

subtype of intellectual disability, and the term intellectual disability is now preferred by

many advocates in most English-speaking countries as a euphemism for mental

retardation.

Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)— is an educational right of children with

disabilities in the United States that is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under the IDEA, FAPE is

defined as an educational program that is individualized to a specific child, designed to

meet that child's unique needs, provides access to the general curriculum, meets the

grade-level standards established by the state, and from which the child receives

educational benefit.

End of Course Exam (EOC)— The Missouri Assessment Program for high school

students, includes required End-of-Course assessments in the subject areas of Algebra I,

Biology, English II and Government. All students are required to participate in EOCs or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_education_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_Act_of_1973

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act


if they meet criteria levels for an alternative assessment, MAP-A for severely mentally

disabled students before graduation.

DESE—Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Missouri

CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literature

Why do students with disabilities need to be in the regular classroom? What does

LRE mean? What is the CWC inclusion model? How does the history of federal laws

and mandates impact these educational philosophies and models? Having a background

understanding of LRE and the CWC inclusion model, as well as the history of SPED and

federal legislation, is important to establishing how Polo R-VII is to provide appropriate

services to SPED students in their district. For a small rural district, discovering how

these models work in the practical world, as well as how teacher and student perceptions

impact the success of such programs, is imperative. The most important question is how

do SPED students feel about their ability to be successful academically and socially with

the CWC inclusive model?

Least Restrictive Environment—

The Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, had a great impact on

influencing the development of Special Education and is the fundamental argument for

providing an education in the least restrictive environment. “In the field of public

education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational

facilities are inherently unequal” (p. 9)…Advocates for individuals with disabilities used

the rationale behind this ruling, to argue that students with disabilities would be included

in public schools, not separated in institutional settings as many were at the time.


Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and subsequent amendments,

schools were required to provide FAPE for all students with disabilities. The provision

of LRE for students was included in the original 1975 special education law.

(Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C.J., Rinaldo, & Vince J, 2010) The principle of LRE and

the tension between the LRE and FAPE, have provoked more confusion and controversy

than any other issue in special education. (Yell, Mitchell L., 1995)

So what does LRE mean? The statute provides:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children

in public or private institutions or other care facilities, [be] educated with children

who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other

removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment

[occur] only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in

regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be

achieved satisfactorily. (20 U.S.C. § 300.551)

It is important to recognize the LRE is not a specific placement nor is there a single

definition of what the least restrictive environment is for each student …there is a

recognition that some students would not benefit from full inclusion because the nature of

their disability would prevent them from being successful without additional

supports…The school also bears the burden of identifying supplementary services,

modification, and accommodations that may allow the student with a disability to be

successful in those integrated settings. (Rozalski, Steward, & Miller, 2010)

As a basic principle it is clear that (1) the least restrictive setting for any student is the

general education environment, and (2) any other setting would be considered more

restrictive…most professionals agree that the more removed from the general education


environment and curriculum a student with a disability is, the more restrictive the setting.

(Rozalski, Michael, Stewart, Angie & Miller, Jason, 2010)

There are several court cases that help school districts navigate the unclear waters of

LRE (see Appendixes 1-3). Districts often struggle with finding the appropriate

placement and/or level of inclusion for a disabled student. Districts often ask, to what

level is it appropriate for a student to be mainstreamed? In Daniel R.R. v. State Board of

Education, 1989, the court found that the school district was responsible for determining

if a student would be able to understand the essential elements of the curriculum. The

court also noted that “mainstreaming” could be detrimental because the regular classroom

may not be able to meet the child’s unique needs. The court further stated that

“mainstreaming” a child who would suffer from the experience would violate the Act’s

mandate for a free appropriate public education.” (Rozalski, Stewart, & Miller, 2010)

However, neither the law nor the regulations map out how school districts are to

determine LRE.

The most restrictive placements are also the most segregated and offer the most

intensive services; least restrictive placements are the most integrated and independent

and offer the least intensive services…If and when the person develops additional skills,

he or she can “transition” to a less restrictive placement. (Taylor, 1988) The P.L. 94-142

law indicates there is a continuum of placements:

Each public agency shall insure that a continuum of alternative placements is

available to meet the needs of handicapped children for special education and

related services…The continuum…must include: (Federal Register, 1977,

p.42497)

-100% inclusion

-inside regular class at least 80% of time


-inside regular class 40-79% of time

-inside regular class less than 40% of time

-public/private separate school (day) facility

-public/private residential facility

-homebound/hospital

-state operated separate school

-correctional facility

-parentally placed private school

With this continuum of services is the idea of fading support; systematically reducing

the type and level of support given to a student. This fading support can reduce the

negative impact of adult support and allow for more natural supports to occur. Invasive

adult support has had inadvertent detrimental effects on students with disabilities, some

include: separation from classmates, unnecessary dependence on adults (student learns to

expect adult support and wait for cues/prompts and doesn’t think independently), a

feeling of being stigmatized, and loss of personal control. (Causton-Theoharis, 2009)

Schools with limited resources have argued (Flour Bluff Independent School v.

Katherine M., 1996) that they couldn’t afford to provide a full range of placements along

the continuum. The court’s ruling was that school districts cannot refuse to place a child

in a LRE because it does not have that specific placement option in its district. As a

result, schools often develop collaborative arrangements with nearby districts to provide

their continuum of LRE services (i.e. state school for very low cognitive/developmental

disabilities, alternative schools for students with emotional/behavioral disabilities, etc.).

(Rozalski, Stewart, & Miller, 2010).

Inclusion—

All students are part of a school both academically and socially. Inclusion is a way of

thinking; belief that all children are valued members of the school and classroom


community. It is also a physical placement; a place where all students have access to

rigorous and meaningful general education curricula and receive collaborative support to

succeed. (Causton-Theoharis, 2009) So, a goal of inclusion is the assimilation of students

with disabilities into the regular education classroom where they can be successful with

appropriate accommodations/modifications. There is often tension around what is

possible, what is desirable, and how student’s actual needs are addressed. (Skilton-

Sylvester, & Slesaransky-Poe, 2009). It is vital that the learner have the necessary

skills and attributes to literally “fit into” the mainstream classroom and school.

The purpose of inclusion is to transform student learning capacity in the following

areas: intellectual, affective, social (Hart, Dixon, Drummond, & McIntyre, 2004) The

first is the academic and intellectual growth of the student. Does the student have the

academic skills (i.e. reading ability) needed to be successful in an inclusive classroom?

The second is the behavioral. For an academic mainstreamed classroom, behavior

appears to be important because there is a strong correlation between academic behavior

and achievement. The third is affective; that the student has a stake in learning, and finds

learning tasks meaningful. Also, in this area students need to find security, confidence,

competence, and a sense of belonging to community.

Student behaviors are also a factor in determining if inclusion is an appropriate

placement. Students whose academic skills or behaviors fall within a “circle of

tolerance” in a classroom are viewed as “normal,” and the responses to their academic

and social behaviors are perceived to be “ordinary” responses by the teacher in an

acceptable range of student differences. Students that fall outside of this range are


viewed as “abnormal” and require special instruction/support—some students continue to

need separation from peers for their own good as well as for the benefit of their peers.

An underlying assumption of successful inclusive programs is that all children will be

included in the learning and social communities of the school and that classrooms in

these schools will be accepting of diversity, and no one will be left out (McLesky &

Waldron, 2007). A fundamental goal of inclusion is to make an increasingly wider range

of differences ordinary in a general education classroom.

In one study, where students were observed in inclusive classrooms, LD students were

rated higher than their non-disabled peers at paying attention—but less in participation

and discussion. Students were given the same activities/assignments as non-disabled

peers, same conditions/expectations—secondary teachers did not modify their instruction

for the LD students in their classes—or did so to the benefit to the entire class. As a

whole, the LD students performed as well or better than their regular education class

peers on report cards. In fact not one of the LD students failed their mainstream classes,

whereas three non-disabled students failed the classes observed. These SPED students

were mainstreamed into low-achieving classes so they could find success in regular

education. They fit in with the low achievers and were able to behave as expected by

their peers (Truesdell, 1990).

The Social aspect of inclusion is often belittled but has a huge impact on student

academic motivation and growth. Children with disabilities have a propensity to engage

in behaviors that can be particularly problematic in educational settings and for the

professionals who work with them. One important feature of inclusion is to ensure

opportunities exist for children to exchange their thoughts and feelings with others and to


participate in social communicative interactions with peers and teachers. (Harjusola-

Webb, Hubell, & Bedesem, 2012). Behavioral change due to environmental change. (1)

Peer expectations—Some students with consistent behavioral problems often will

conform to the norms of their peer class or older aged peers, to better fit in and be

accepted. Behaviors often improve in a CWC setting because the “norms” of behavior

are higher than those traditionally in a SPED resource room. (2) Peer-Mediated

Intervention—peers take an instructional role with classmates—peer proximity,

prompting, and initiation of acceptable behaviors modeled for student with disability

(Harjusola-Webb, Hubell, & Bedesem, 2012).

Thinking in terms of social rights, participation in society is not just to freedom from

discrimination, as civil rights are typically framed. The rights of students with disabilities

to be full social members of a particular school and classroom community is typically

seen as the fluff of inclusion—it is no the academic piece, but the social piece. In fact,

there is literature that suggests that social belonging and positive relationships within

schools have much to do with academic achievement. (Skilton-Sylvester, & Slesaransky-

Poe, 2009).

The Capability approach (capabilities are those actions and approaches to living ones

values—forces us to look at what people can actually do) gives us an understanding of

difference that is both individual and relational (creating democratic individuals). It

allows a view of inclusion as an ethical concept—in which the purpose is to adapt for

each pupil. The pupil is at the center. The purpose of inclusion must fall within a

framework of core educational values. (Reindal, Solveig Magnus, 2010)


An underlying assumption of successful inclusive programs is that all children will be

included in the learning and social communities of the school and that classrooms in

these schools will be accepting of diversity, and no one will be left out (McLesky &

Waldron, 2007). A fundemental goal of inclusion is to make an increasingly wider range

of differences ordinary in a general education classroom.

Inclusive classrooms are only successful to the extent that they can accommodate

most of the needs of students with disabilities in ways that are a natural and unobtrusive

part of the school day (McLesky & Waldron, 1995). Trying to force all students into the

inclusion mold is just as coercive and discriminatory as trying to force all students into

the mold of a special education class or residential institution (Brackenreed, 2008). Poor

quality inclusion has been refered to, and rightfully so, as “maindumping” instead of

mainstreaming by Stainback and Stainback (Blamires, 1999)

CWC Design Models—

So it is important to understand what the CWC model looks like. This is a co-

teaching and/or consultant model—two or more professionals delivering substantive

instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space

(Kilanowski-Press, Foote, Rinaldo, 2010)

In small school districts (often in rural settings) the CWC design model has LD

students clustered together and assigned to general education classes as a group. This is

necessary because it allows the special education teacher to spend a longer part of each

school day in the fewest number of inclusion classrooms. Also, in small districts the

number of SPED staff is limited and their time needs to be maximized.


Another possible CWC design model has LD students distributed across the school so

that no one class is overrepresented with LD students. This model is more appropriate in

larger schools/districts with more SPED personnel. It can be done in smaller districts,

only it spreads the limited SPED staff thin. This is because it requires SPED teachers to

distribute their time across a greater number of classes, with shorter amounts of time in

each. This can cause problems for the regular education teachers and students who need

additional and consistent supports.

With these models, a SPED teacher’s role needs to expand. They become responsible

for teaching all students. They provide assistance to the entire range of students in the

regular education classroom, not just students with IEPs. SPED teachers have to find

time for consulting with teachers in general education, and for participating in teacher

assistance teams.

For the SPED and regular education teachers alike, there is a concern that they do not

have enough time for co-planning. If an appropriate amount of planning time isn’t

provided (built-into the schedule), lessons will not flow, and one person will end up

taking over. This often leads the SPED teachers to feel like “guests” in another teacher’s

classroom. Often because of lack of built in time—an alternative approach to co-teaching

involves one of the two teachers teaching a whole-class lesson while the second teacher

circulates, monitors, and prompts individual students during instruction.

Another typical strategy involves the SPED teacher working with a pre-designated

group of students with a remedial lesson while the general education teacher gives an

enrichment lesson to the remainder of the class. This method is used so the SPED


students stay in sync with ongoing curriculum but are able to receive remedial

instruction.

Often these approaches are also enriched with pull-out instruction in the SPED

resource room. This setting is provided during school day to provide further remediation

and/or additional time to students with processing disabilities/deficits.

Then the question is, what makes it work? The following are a list of indicators for a

successive CWC inclusion program:

Natural/unobtrusive support to students

assist all students, with/without disabilities

enhance the class instruction—new teaching strategies/tools

mutual respect—devoid of territorial/power struggle dynamics

commitment to inclusion; at least a feeling of duty, “part of the job”

belief that students could be successful in the regular classroom

belief that academic and social engagement were both important to all

students

collaboration between teachers; extra staff support for teacher and students

classroom management--maintaining on-task behavior

varied instructional methods--explaining material in different ways

constant formative assessments to catch areas students are struggling in—re-

teaching where necessary

The CWC inclusion model was found to only moderately improve student academic

outcomes. On one hand, Zigmond, Jenkins, Fuchs, Deno and Fuchs (1995) in an

examination of several inclusive programs noted limited academic success for students

with mild disabilities; on the other McLeskey and Waldoron (1995), commenting on the

same programs, suggested that we need to be realistic about academic outcomes and

compare these with achievement in segregated environments (O’Rourke & Houghton,

2010). It appears that the greatest benefit of inclusion is an increase in peer relationships,

social skills, and self-esteem (Kilanowski-Press, Foote, Rinaldo, 2010).


Teacher Perceptions and Concerns with CWC—

Teacher perceptions of CWC and the inclusion of students with disabilities greatly

impact the effectiveness of a school inclusion programs. In one study teachers indicated

a list of stressors associated with the practice of inclusion. The most stressful being the

perceived interference with teacher’s instructional time. Other stressors included:

increased paperwork, workload, extracurricular/tutoring demands, and interpersonal

conflicts with both students and collaborating teachers, lack of general support (building

and district level), and insufficient teacher preparation (Brackenreed, 2008).

The Brackenreed study found that teachers were generally supportive of the

philosophy of inclusion as related to equity and rights, but the practical application of the

philosophy was the problem. Some of the practical considerations they felt were not

adequately addressed: support personnel in the regular education classroom, manageable

class sizes/composition, resources, planning time, training, and mentoring.

Also, these teachers indicated that they felt they were not included in the placement

decisions. SPED student placement was something that happened to them; they had no

say or control. Teachers said promises were often made for supports but rarely

materialized. They just had to accept the situation and do the best they could with little to

no supports.

Another area of concern was distracting behaviors of SPED students. Often they

found SPED students’ behaviors inhibited the learning process for other students. The

demands and needs of these students could be staggering, especially when additional

personnel support was not provided. Despite these concerns, many of the teachers in the


study indicated that “most special needs students benefited from mainstream inclusion,

but more concrete support was necessary.” (Brackenreed, 2008)

Also, in the Scruggs and Matropieri study, the attitudes and perceptions of general

education teachers toward inclusion were evaluated using survey techniques for the past

50 years (1996). In these research reports, teachers generally indicated that they did not

have adequate training for work with students with special needs either in their teacher

preparation programs or as part of their in-service professional development. They also

reported a need for more personnel assistance in the classroom to support their teaching.

Other common concerns include: size of the class, severity of disability, teaching

experience, and grade level (Kilanowski-Press, Foote, Rinaldo, 2010)

Teachers are concerned that they do not have the skills and/or knowledge for meeting

the needs of mixed ability levels. Differentiated instruction is difficult and time

consuming. Teachers are increasingly asked to do more and to where multiple hats,

especially in small rural school settings. As more is asked of teachers their allocation of

time to tasks often decrease. Associated with this are increasing pressures of government

guidelines and standardized testing. Teachers are concerned not only about having the

time to cover the content students need, but feel they are rushing and students do not

understand the material to the depth they would desire. Personnel support and PD

training in these areas are vital to successful inclusion. In Baker’s study, the numbers of

students to be served and the numbers of special education teachers assigned greatly

influenced the success of the inclusion design model (1995).

Another identified stressor involved collaborating with another teacher, especially for

teachers used to a greater level of autonomy. One special education teacher in Kansas


reported that, during the first year of implementation, general education teachers had

been assigned to the CWC model and had resisted working with a special education

partner. This created friction and an overall negative experience for all involved, both

teachers and students (Baker, 1995).

State Expectations—

SPED students are required to participate in the same standards based End of Course

Exams (EOCs) state testing as their regular education peers; sometimes without the

benefit of taking the class. For instance, a high school student functioning at a third

grade math ability level is still required to take the Algebra I EOC before graduation. So

allowing these SPED students access to the curriculum is important but has to be

tempered by what is academically realistic and beneficial to the student. These IEP

students are allowed accommodations to the assessment (i.e. extended time, one-on-

one/small group setting, test read to them—on some assessments, etc.).

So for core content areas such as science and social studies, SPED students need to be

mainstreamed or provided CWC more than ever before. These students are expected to

make adequate yearly progress towards state/national standards. Science is one of the

most difficult subjects for Learning Disabled (LD) students due to the more complex

vocabulary, theoretical concepts and processes required.

Student Perceptions and Concerns with CWC—

Often SPED students have negative feelings about their disabilities and are concerned

about being mainstreamed because of their fear of being singled out with derogatory

terms such as “stupid” (Litvack, Ritchie, & Shore, 2011).


High achieving non-disabled students are most often resentful of having SPED

students included in their classroom for instruction. This resentment centers on their fear

that their grades will suffer because of behaviors of disabled peers. High achieving

students indicated the following in the Kelly and Norwich study (2004):

“It’s kind of annoying if you really understand…and you have to wait for

everybody else to learn it and [the teacher] already repeated it seven times…If

you get bored, you don’t really want to pay attention and you might start

going down in school.”

“You don’t get to learn as fast,”

“They interrupt our learning process.”

“If there is a problem the teacher has to interrupt the lesson.”

Average achieving children were more likely than high achieving children to report

that the presence of classmates with disabilities did not affect their learning. They were

more accepting and likely to provide peer supports to the SPED students. They did not

perceive a big difference in classroom instruction or disruption:

“It’s the same thing. They’re like all other kids, just having problems.”

Providing for the needs of special needs students is complicated. There are pressures

from all sides, for schools to meet these needs. School districts have a lot to consider

when planning out the support services available for SPED students.


CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Method

The following research methods were used to investigate the research questions stated

above. The methods of 1) research design, 2) study group description and

demographics, 3) data collection and instrumentation, and 4) statistical analysis are

described below.

Research Design

The present study serves as a descriptive inquiry into the CWC inclusion model in the

Polo R-VII rural high school. SPED students that participated in CWC from the 2008-

2009 through 2011-12 SYs and were still attending during the fall of 2011, answered the

survey. Consent for testing of these students was provided by the building principal. The

survey was administered anonymously.

Study Group Description and Demographics

Polo R-VII is a small rural K-12 school district in Missouri. One building services the

elementary, middle, and high schools. The elementary and high school principals share

administrative responsibilities for the middle school. The high school consists of grades

9-12 and is approx. 100% white. The high school had a population of 117 during the

2010-2011 school year (see Table 1 shows the enrollment trends from 2008-2011).

Students eligible for the free and reduced lunch program has increased steadily from

2008 through 2011 (see Table 2). Having over half of the school enrollment eligible for

this program demonstrates the economic difficulties of this demographic area. Also, this

factor is often an indicator of lower student academic achievement. For Polo high school,


the number of students with disabilities has been consistent with slight variations from

year to year (see Table 4).

The school does benefit from smaller class sizes. The average class size was 14:1 for

the student to teacher class ratio. For the CWC model, however, the class size is

increased to an average of 20 students per class because the SPED students are clustered

for placement in the limited CWC offerings each school year (see Table 12). However,

the CWC model also adds a teacher; the ratio is 20:2 students to teachers. The SPED

teacher provides support for the entire class period (50 minutes daily), as a secondary

support and/or pullout support for part of the CWC class period. Because of the small

school size and limited special services staff, clustering students into these CWCs is

necessary to provide services to students (See Table 11). Polo R-VII is limited, and can

provide no more than four CWCs per school year.

Table 1—DESE—Polo R-VII High School (9-12) Enrollment Demographics:

Enrollment 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total 148 128 126 117

Asian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Black * 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Hispanic 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Indian * 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

White 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 2—DESE--Polo R-VII High School (9-12) Free or Reduced Lunch Demographics:

T

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch

2008 2009 2010 2011

Percent 30.1% 34.3% 50.0% 55.4% Number 37 36 57 56


TABLE 3—DESE—Polo R-VII High School Student/Staff Ratios

Staffing Ratios 2008 2009 2010 2011

Students to classroom teachers 14 14 15 14

Students to administrators 197 171 168 156

TABLE 4—DESE—Polo R-VII High School Students with Disabilities

Polo High School 2008 2009 2010 2011

Students w/ Disabilities

20 20 25 22

Percent of total HS population

13.5% 15.6% 19.8% 18.8%

Data Collection Methods and Instruments to be Used

Students’ reading data was collected from district-wide Gates MacGinitie Reading

Assessment scores (bi-annually assessed—total scores a combination of student

vocabulary and comprehension grade level achievement). The data used is from the Fall

2011 scores were compiled on the student’s surveyed.

A survey was administered to all high school SPED students (9-12 grades) who had

participated in CWC at least once at Polo R-VII school district. Also, general

observations and concerns were collected from participating regular education students

and teachers during the 2011-2012 SY. The Polo R-VII school demographic data was

collected from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

(DESE).

Statistical analysis methods used

This descriptive study provides a simple summary of Polo R-VII’s demographics,

CWC program, and participating SPED student observations of this program. A survey

was used to collect individual students’ perceptions of the CWC inclusive model in their


school. Also, regular education students and teachers involved in CWC, were informally

questioned about its effectiveness and concerns they had with the model.

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

Presentations of the Data Analysis

Using the 21 SPED students’ surveys, the average student results were tabulated

according to the following variables: gender, grade level, reading grade equivalent,

disability, and number of CWC experiences.

Gender—

Male student average scores differed from the female students in that they did not like

having a SPED teacher in the regular education classroom and were more confident about

being successful in a regular education classroom (see Table 5). Also, they were more

confident than the female students, in not only their reading ability of the course

materials, but also in their ability to follow class rules, procedures, and expectations.

This is interesting because the male and female reading grade equivalents almost

identical (see Table 6).


Table 5—Student Gender and Survey Question scores

Student CWC Survey Questions

Mal

e

(10

stu

den

ts)

Fem

ale

(11

stu

den

ts)

I like having a SPED teacher in the regular education classroom. 2.6 3.0

Either teacher will help me when I am confused or I don’t understand. 3.3 3.64

I would prefer that SPED accommodations and modifications be provided by the

regular education classroom teacher.

2.8 2.27

I would prefer to have SPED accommodations and modifications be provided by the

SPED resource room.

2.5 2.82

I like to be in the regular classroom. 2.8 2.9

I can be successful with CWC in a regular education class. 3.4 2.9

I would rather be in a SPED classroom for all of my content classes. 2.1 2.18

I can’t keep up with the CWC regular education class. 1.8 1.82

I don’t understand what the teacher is talking about in my regular education classes. 2.3 1.82

I understand and can follow the classroom rules, procedures, and expectations in

regular education.

3.5 3.36

I can read the textbook and classroom assignments/tests. 3.1 2.64

I feel comfortable participating in class activities and discussions in CWC. 3.0 3.55

I am anxious because I am afraid the regular education students will make fun of me. 2.1 3.82

I am anxious because I am afraid that I will look stupid in front of the regular

education students.

2.0 2.82

Most of my friends are in regular education and I like to be in as many classes with

them as I can.

3.0 3.1

I like having a teacher in CWC that can take me out and help me in a smaller group. 2.7 3.36

I can pay attention to the teacher the whole period in CWC classes. 2.7 2.82

I have accommodations and modifications that help me be successful in CWC classes. 2.9 3.0

When I ask for help, I don’t have to think—the teacher will just give me the answer. 1.9 1.64

I don’t deserve the grades I get on assignments/tests. 1.7 1.64

Table 6—Student Gender and Reading Grade Equivalents

Student CWC Survey

1.1

-1.9

GE

2.1

-2.9

GE

3.1

-3.9

GE

4.1

-4.9

GE

5.1

– 5

.9 G

E

6.1

-6

.9 G

E

7.1

-7

.9 G

E

8.1

-8.9

GE

9.1

-9.9

GE

10

.1-1

0.9

GE

11

.1-1

1.9

GE

12

.1-1

2.9

GE

Boys 1 2 2 1 1 2 1

Girls 1 1 3 2 1 2 1

Total numbers of students at this reading level 1 1 0 2 1 3 4 2 3 3 0 1

Percentage of students at this reading level 5% 5% -- 10% 5% 14% 19% 10% 14% 14% -- 5%

Grade Level—

Regardless of grade level, SPED students indicated that they did not want to receive

their SPED accommodations in the SPED resource room (see Table 7). They liked their


CWC experience and felt that they could be successful, and keep up with the class in a

regular education setting. Students across grade levels disagreed/strongly disagreed with

the idea of having all their content classes in the SPED resource room. Also, students in

all grade levels agreed that they were able to follow classroom rules, procedures, and

expectations in CWC. No specific grade level indicated anxiety towards being in this

academic setting. All grade level students indicated that they deserve the grades received

in CWC. Scores differed on some questions, but the most significant was that the 9th

graders disagreed that both the SPED and regular education teacher would help them, if

confused in a class.

Disability—

When students’ surveys were broken out by their disability the above concern was

eliminated, students knew that both teachers would help them when they were confused.

Again the students indicated that they deserved the grades they earned but the language

impaired (LI) student felt the teacher would give them answers rather than make them

work for it. The intellectually disabled (ID) students indicated that they liked to have a

SPED teacher in CWC and both the ID and learning disabled (LD) students would prefer

to have their accommodations provided in the SPED resource room rather than in the

regular education setting. The ID and LD students agreed that they could be successful in

CWC but the Other Health Impaired (OHI—autistic, ADHD, etc.) and LI students

disagreed. The LD and OHI students were the most confident about being able to read

the text and materials from their CWCs. The ID and LD students were the most

comfortable with participating in class discussions and the least anxious of being made


fun of by their regular education peers. Also, the LI and ID students liked having a

SPED teacher pull them out of class for small group instruction and/or support (see Table

8).

Table 7 Survey Question Scores and Student Grade Levels (avg. scores per grade level)


9th

Gra

de

(4 s

tud

ents

)

10

th G

rad

e

(4 s

tud

ents

)

11

th G

rad

e

(6 s

tud

ents

)

12

th G

rad

e

(7 s

tud

ents

)

I like having a SPED teacher in the regular education classroom. 2.5 3.0 3.17 2.57

Either teacher will help me when I am confused or I don’t

understand.

2.75 3.5 3.83 3.57

I would prefer that SPED accommodations and modifications be

provided by the regular education classroom teacher.

2.25 3.0 2.0 2.86

I would prefer to have SPED accommodations and modifications

be provided by the SPED resource room.

2.75 2.0 2.83 2.86

I like to be in the regular classroom. 3.0 3.0 3.17 3.0

I can be successful with CWC in a regular education class. 3.0 3.0 3.17 3.29

I would rather be in a SPED classroom for all of my content

classes.

1.75 2.25 2.5 1.86

I can’t keep up with the CWC regular education class. 2.5 1.75 1.5 1.86

I don’t understand what the teacher is talking about in my

regular education classes.

2.0 2.25 2.33 1.57

I understand and can follow the classroom rules, procedures, and

expectations in regular education.

3.0 3.75 3.67 3.43

I can read the textbook and classroom assignments/tests. 2.5 3.25 2.83 2.86

I feel comfortable participating in class activities and discussions in

CWC.

2.75 3.5 3.17 2.43

I am anxious because I am afraid the regular education students

will make fun of me.

2.25 2.25 2.5 2.43

I am anxious because I am afraid that I will look stupid in front of

the regular education students.

2.25 2.25 2.5 2.57

Most of my friends are in regular education and I like to be in as many

classes with them as I can.

2.75 2.5 3.33 3.14

I like having a teacher in CWC that can take me out and help me in a

smaller group.

2.5 2.75 3.0 3.14

I can pay attention to the teacher the whole period in CWC classes. 3.0 3.0 2.83 2.43

I have accommodations and modifications that help me be successful

in CWC classes.

2.75 3.25 3.5 2.86

When I ask for help, I don’t have to think—the teacher will just

give me the answer.

1.75 1.75 1.17 1.86

I don’t deserve the grades I get on assignments/tests. 2.5 1.25 1.83 1.29


Table 8—Survey Questions and Disabilities of students surveyed 2011-12 school year


Inte

llec

tual

Dis

abil

ity

(2 s

tud

ents

)

Sp

ecif

ic L

earn

ing

Dis

abil

ity

(13

stu

den

ts)

Oth

er H

ealt

h

Imp

aire

d

(5 s

tud

ents

)

Beh

avio

ral

Dis

abil

ity

Lan

gu

age

Imp

aire

d

(1 s

tud

ent)



understand.

4.0 3.46 3.`2 4.0



2.5 2.38 2.6 4.0

I would prefer to have SPED accommodations and modifications

be provided by the SPED resource room.

3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

I like to be in the regular classroom.

3.0 3.08 3.0 3.0


I would rather be in a SPED classroom for all of my content classes. 2.5 2.0 2.4 1.0


I don’t understand what the teacher is talking about in my regular

education classes.

2.5 1.92 2.0 2.0

I understand and can follow the classroom rules, procedures, and

expectations in regular education.

4.0 3.31 3.6 4.0


I feel comfortable participating in class activities and discussions in

CWC.

3.5 3.15 2.4 1.0



2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0

I am anxious because I am afraid that I will look stupid in front of the

regular education students.

2.5 2.15 2.8 4.0

Most of my friends are in regular education and I like to be in as

many classes with them as I can.

3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0

I like having a teacher in CWC that can take me out and help me

in a smaller group.

3.5 2.92 2.4 4.0

I can pay attention to the teacher the whole period in CWC classes. 3.5 2.77 2.4 3.0

I have accommodations and modifications that help me be successful in

CWC classes.

4.0 2.92 3.4 2.0

When I ask for help, I don’t have to think—the teacher will just give

me the answer.

1.5 1.62 1.4 3.0



Reading Grade Equivalent—

For Table 9 the most significant data was on the item addressing the students ability to

read the textbook and classroom assignments/tests. This table indicates that students that

read from a 6th

grade equivalent (GE) to 12th

GE were able to read the course material.

Students under the 6th

GE needed supports in place to help them access the curriculum.

Table 10—Polo R-VII High School Student Disabilities

Intellectual

Disability

Specific

Learning

Disability

Other Health

Impaired

Behavioral

Disability

Language

Impaired

2 13 5 0 1

10% 62% 24% -- 5%

Unanimously, in all disability areas represented, students indicated that they like to be

in the regular classroom and they don’t want to have all of their core content classes in

the SPED resource room. The students indicated that they understand the content in a

regular education classroom.

Table 11—History/Present CWC classes offered at Polo R-VII School District

2008-2009 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Middle School

7th Science X X

7th Social Studies X X

8th Science X X X

8th Social Studies X X X

High School

Amer. History X

Amer. Gov’t X X

Biology I X X X

Algebra A (Pre-Algebra)

X X

Algebra I X


Table 12—SPED student CWC past/present class size and SPED student percentage of class

(determined each year by student need and increased state expectations)

Table 13—Student survey and number of CWC

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

High School

SPED/Class SPED %

SPED/Class SPED %

SPED/Class SPED %

SPED/Class SPED %

SPED/Class SPED %

Amer. History

10/24 42%

Amer. Gov’t 11/26 42% 5/20 25%

Biology I 11/25 44% 6/22 27% 5/17 29%

Algebra A (Pre-Algebra)

5/20 25% 7/13 54%

Algebra I 5/21 24%


1 C

WC

(4 s

tud

ents

)

2 C

WC

(8 s

tud

ents

)

3 C

WC

(5 s

tud

ents

)

4+

CW

C

(4 s

tud

ents

)



understand.

3.0 3.5 3.6 3.75



2.5 2.63 2.6 2.25

I would prefer to have SPED accommodations and

modifications be provided by the SPED resource room.

2.75 2.63 2.2 3.25

I like to be in the regular classroom. 3.0 3.25 3.2 2.5


I would rather be in a SPED classroom for all of my content

classes.

2.0 1.75 2.8 2.75


I don’t understand what the teacher is talking about in my

regular education classes.

2.25 1.38 2.2 2.75

I understand and can follow the classroom rules,

procedures, and expectations in regular education.

2.75 3.63 3.4 4.0


I feel comfortable participating in class activities and

discussions in CWC.

2.75 2.63 3.4 3.0



2.0 2.5 2.2 2.75

I am anxious because I am afraid that I will look stupid in front

of the regular education students.

2.0 2.63 2.2 2.75

Most of my friends are in regular education and I like to be in as

many classes with them as I can.

2.5 3.63 2.8 2.75

I like having a teacher in CWC that can take me out and help me

in a smaller group.

2.0 3.13 2.8 3.5

I can pay attention to the teacher the whole period in CWC 2.75 2.875 2.6 2.75


Number of CWC Experiences—

Students that had four or more CWC experiences indicated that they preferred to have

SPED accommodations in the SPED resource room. This group also indicated that they

did not like the regular classroom (maybe more was expected of them in these classes)

but also didn’t want all of their core classes in the SPED resource room. Students with

only one or two CWC experiences were less comfortable with participating in class

activities and discussions and didn’t feel that they had the accommodations/modifications

needed to be successful. It appears that with the more experience in the CWC classroom

the students gained greater confidence and were more comfortable being identified as

SPED among their regular education peers.

Regular Education Teacher Perceptions—

Teachers, both regular education and SPED, also gave some informal feedback

concerning their feelings about CWC at Polo High School. The teachers all agreed that

having an additional teacher in the classroom was ideal and facilitated learning of all

students in the classroom. The teachers said that they could see that the SPED students

were learning and making progress in their CWC course. They felt that SPED students

did their own work and their grades were reflective of their knowledge of the content and

the effort put into the class. SPED students were able to meet the classroom rules,

procedures, and overall expectations of the CWC course. There was consensus that the

SPED students were provided appropriate modifications and accommodations and that

classes.

I have accommodations and modifications that help me be

successful in CWC classes.

2.75 3.0 3.2 3.5

When I ask for help, I don’t have to think—the teacher will just

give me the answer.

2.25 1.63 1.4 1.25



SPED students participated in class discussions and activities. The regular education

teachers did indicate that they preferred to have the SPED teachers address student

accommodations and modifications. Overall, the teachers considered the CWC a positive

instruction model and appropriate to the needs and resources of Polo High School.

Polo teachers were concerned that some students were not able to keep up with the

regular education curriculum and pace. There were mixed feelings about CWC being the

best placement for SPED student learning (not appropriate for all SPED students). One

teacher was concerned about the weight of grades, for students that required more

significant accommodations and modifications. This teacher wanted to make sure the

grading was appropriate and fair to the regular education students.

Student Perceptions—

The regular education students indicated that they know who all the SPED students

are in CWC courses. They indicated that they are aware that everyone is different and

that learning is harder for some students and that the SPED students did most of the same

work they did in class. There were mixed feelings about having a SPED teacher and

students in their regular education class. They did say that both teachers helped them if

they didn’t understand the curriculum. Some students felt the SPED students got special

treatment and when they misbehaved didn’t get into trouble. However, one student said

she had seen both regular education and SPED students misbehave and not get into

trouble. Many students thought the SPED students followed the class rules and

participated in the class and didn’t mind having them. Many said that they had SPED

friends and were glad to have them in class.


SPED Student Grades in Regular Ed.—

The grades in Tables 17-23 show a wide range of student achievement. Some students

earned “Fs” in a number of classes. However, these grades were not a concern for the

regular education or SPED teachers. The students that received these grades earned

them. The students were given accommodations and supports but due to lack of

motivation failed the class. Often, many of these students also earned “Fs” in the SPED

resource room. They did not participate in instruction and did not meet academic

expectations, appropriate to their disability and ability level. The students, as indicated in

the survey, reported that they received the grades they earned. There was no inflation of

grades in the CWC program.

Table 14—American History 2008-2009 SPED student grades

Term 1

Term

2

Semester Term

3

Term 4 Semester

B- B B B- B+ B

B+ B B B B+ B

C- B- C C+ B- B-

D D+ D D D- D

D D+ D C- B B-

A- B+ A- B+ B B

C D D+ F F F

C C C- C C

C+ D+ C C+ C- C


C- D D+ D D D

Table 15—Biology I 2008-2009 SPED student grades

Term 1

Term 2 Semester Term 3 Term 4 Semester

C+ D C- F D+ F

C B B- B- B- B-

C B- C+ C B B-

D D- D C+ B C+

D+ F D- F F F

F F F

C D+ C- D+ C- C-

D- F F F F F

B- B B- B+ B B

B B B B+ B+ B+

F B- D+ D D D


Table 16—American Government 2009-2010 SPED student grades

Term 1


F F F D- D- D

C- C C+ C+ C C+

A- B= A-

C C- C C B- C+

B C+ B- B B B

C- C- D+ A A- A-

C- C C- D- C C-

B- B- C+ A A A

C C+ C D+ B+ C+

C C+ C B A- B+

F D D_ F C D+


Term 1


C C+ C C- D D

F B- D- F F F

D+ F D- F F F

F F F D+ C C-


D+ C D+ D+ C+ C-

F F F

Table 18—American Government 2010-2011 SPED student grades

Term 1


C C+ C C+ C C

C- C+ C C B C+

B- B- C+ D+ B- C

D- D- D- C C- D-

B+ B B B B+ B


Term 1


D C- D+ D D D+

B+ B- B B- C+ B-

B- F D- D- F F

B B- B C- C C-

B C- C+ D+ C C


Table 20—Algebra A 2011-2012 SPED student grades

Term 1


A- B B+ A- B+ B

B+ B C+ B B- D+

B+ C+ B- F B+ C-

A- B- B B- B B

A- B B+ C D+ D+

CHAPTER 5

OVERVIEW, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussion of Findings

Given the limited number of students involved in this study, it is not possible to make

generalizations from the findings; however, they reveal a snapshot of the perceptions of

SPED students on issues related to the effectiveness of CWC inclusion in a small rural

school setting. Through SPED student surveys, this study adds to the limited research

base on attitudes of secondary SPED students towards CWC inclusion.

Conclusion


In the current climate of accountability due to No Child Left Behind and the

requirements of IDEA, student improved achievement is a priority for all school

districts. Also, under IDEA, there is a mandate to provide a free and appropriate

education (FAPE) in the “least restrictive environment” (LRE). In a small rural

school district, the stakes become even higher with limited resources and personnel.

With smaller student populations, but an increasing population of identified SPED

students, each students’ state test scores (EOCs) are under scrutiny and can affect the

district AYP and APR, thus impacting school budgets. As a result of both factors,

student support personnel and resources are limited. From student feedback, CWC is

a model that provides needed supports that help them feel successful in the regular

education setting and better access regular education curricula.


REFERENCES

Baker, Janice M. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with

learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal

of Special Education, 29(2), 163-180.

Blamires, Mike (1999). Universal design for learning: Re-establishing differentiation as

part of the inclusion agenda? Support for Learning, 14(4), 158-163.

Blandul, Valentin Cosmin (2010). International approaches to inclusion of

children with special educational needs in mainstream education. Problems of

Education in the 21st Century, 21, 29-36

Brackenreed, Darlene (2008). Inclusive education: identifying teachers’ perceived

stressors in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada, 18(3), 131-

147.

Causton-Theoharis, Julie N. (2009). The golden rule of providing support in inclusive

classrooms: support others as you would wish to be supported. TEACHING

Exceptional Children, 42(2), 36-43.

Florian, Lani (2010). Special education in an era of inclusion: The end of special

education or a new beginning? The Psychology of Education Review, 34(2), 22-

29.


Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M.D., Boon, R.T., & Smith, S. (2008). Academic

achievement and class placement in high school: Do students with learning

disabilities achieve more in one class placement than another? Education &

Treatment of Children, 31(1), 55-73.

Harjusola-Webb, Sanna, Hubell, Sophia Parke, & Bedesem, Pena (2012). Increasing

prosocial behaviors of young children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms

using a combination of peer-mediated intervention and social narratives. Beyond

Behavior, Winter, 29-36.

Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M.J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning Without Limits.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Idol, Lorna (2006). Towards inclusion of special education students in general education:

A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2),

77-94.

James, Sarah & Freeze, Rick (2006). One step forward, two steps back: Immanent

critique of the practice of zero tolerance in inclusive schools. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 581-594.

Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C.J., Rinaldo, Vince J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and

teachers: a survey of current practices. International Journal of Special

Education, 25(3), 43-56.

Klingner, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Students’ perceptions of instruction in inclusion

classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional

Children, 66(1), 23-37.


Litvack, Marla S., Ritchie, Krista C., & Shore, Bruce M (2011). High-and average-

achieving students’ perceptions of disabilities and of students with disabilities in

inclusive classrooms. Council for Exceptional Children, 77(4), 474-487.

Marino, Matthew T. (2010). Defining a technology research agenda for elementary and

secondary students with learning and other high-incidence disabilities in inclusive

science classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(1), 1-27.

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N.L. (1995). Inclusive elementary programs: Must they cure

students with learning disabilities to be effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 300-302.

McLeskey, James & Waldron, Nancy L. (2007). Making differences ordinary in

inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 162-168.

Obiakor, Festus E. (2011). Maximizing access, equity, and inclusion in general and

special education. The Journal of International Association of Special Education,

12(1), 10-16.

O’Rourke, John & Houghton, Stephen (2010). The perceptions of secondary teachers and

students about the implementation of an inclusive classroom model for students

with mild disabilities. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 23-41.

Available at: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol34/iss1/3

Reindal, Solveig Magnus (2010). What is the purpose? Reflections on inclusion and

special education from a capability perspective. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 25(1), 1-12.

Rozalski, Michael, Stewart, Angie & Miller, Jason (2010). How to determine the least

restrictive

environment for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 18, 151-163.

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol34/iss1/3


Rueda, Robert, Gallego, Margaret A., & Moll, Luis C. (2000). The least restrictive

environment: A place or a context? Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 70-

78.

Sale, Paul & Carey, Doris M. (1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities

in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62(1), 6-19.

Skilton-Sylvester, Ellen & Slesaransky-Poe, Graciela (2009). More than a least

restrictive environment: Living up to the civil covenant in building inclusive

schools. Perspectives on Urban Education, Spring, 32-37.

Taylor, Steven J. (2004). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of

the least restrictive environment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, 29, (4), 218-230.

Truesdell, Lee Ann (1990). Behavior and achievement of mainstreamed junior high

special class students. The Journal of Special Education, 24(2), 234-245.

Yell, Mitchell L. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion, and students with

disabilities: A legal analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 28(4), 389-404.

Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education

services? Is one place better than the other? Journal of Special Education, 37(3),

193-199.

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, D., Deno, S. & S., Fuchs, L. (1995). When students fail

to achieve satisfactorily. Phi Delta Kappan, 303-306.

A University in Missouri, College in Missouri - Submitted to...students with mild to moderate...

Documents

Transcript of A University in Missouri, College in Missouri - Submitted to...students with mild to moderate...