Remedial and Special Education ... · PDF file115 tricts as part of a national study on...

http://rse.sagepub.com/Remedial and Special Education

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/20/2/114The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/074193259902000209

1999 20: 114Remedial and Special EducationSpencer J. Salend and Laurel M. Garrick Duhaney

The Impact of Inclusion on Students With and Without Disabilities and Their Educators

Published by:

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Remedial and Special EducationAdditional services and information for

http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/20/2/114.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 1999Version of Record >>

at University of British Columbia Library on September 2, 2014rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of British Columbia Library on September 2, 2014rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rse.sagepub.com/

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/20/2/114

http://www.hammill-institute.org/

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/20/2/114.refs.html

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/20/2/114.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



114

The Impact of Inclusion on StudentsWith and Without Disabilities andTheir Educators

SPENCER J. SALEND AND LAUREL M. GARRICK DUHANEY

ABSTRACT

This article reviews the literature with respect to inclu-sion programs and students with and without disabilities and their

teachers. The findings of the studies reviewed cited indicate that:(a) the impact of inclusion programs on the academic perfor-mance and social development of students with disabilities hasbeen mixed; (b) the placement of students without disabilities ininclusion programs does not appear to interfere with their aca-

demic performance and has several social benefits for thesestudents; and (c) teachers’ responses to inclusion programs arecomplex, are shaped by multiple variables, and change overtime. The implications of the findings for students and educatorsinvolved in inclusion programs as well as the limitations of thestudies cited are discussed.

THE MOVEMENT TOWARD INCLUSION HAS CREATED ANHE MOVEMENT TOWARD INCLUSION HAS CREATED AN

emphasis on educating students with disabilities in generaleducation classrooms. Data from the U.S. Department ofEducation (1996) have indicated that approximately 73%of students with disabilities receive their instructional programin general education classrooms and resource room settings,and that 95% of the students with disabilities are served in

general education schools. The recent reauthorization of theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 105-17)also includes general provisions that encourage the placementof students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Tumbull,Turnbull, Shank, & Leal, 1999).

Inclusion is a movement that seeks to create schools andother social institutions based on meeting the needs of all

learners as well as respecting and learning from each other’s sdifferences (Salend, 1998). Inclusionary schools seek to estab-lish communities of learners by educating all students togetherin age-appropriate, general education classrooms in their neigh-borhood schools. Although the inclusion movement has focusedon individuals with disabilities, it is designed to alter thephilosophy for educating all students (Ferguson, 1996).

Although the concept of educating students with dis-abilities in general education classrooms is not new, its impacton students and educators continues to be examined anddebated. This article examines these issues by reviewing theliterature with respect to inclusion programs and their impacton students with and without disabilities and on general edu-cation (GE) and special education (SE) teachers. Althoughinclusion also significantly affects families of students withand without disabilities, which would make an interestingparallel to the other issues discussed, we decided not toaddress inclusion’s impact on families because it was beyondthe scope of this article. (For a discussion on families’ per-spectives on inclusion, see Bennett, DeLuca, & Bruns, 1997;Giangreco, Edelman, Cloninger, & Dennis, 1993; Gibb et al.,1997; Green & Shinn, 1994.)

IMPACT ON STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Academic Outcomes

The impact of participation in inclusion programs on theacademic performance of students with disabilities has beenexamined by numerous researchers. Reports from school dis-

at University of British Columbia Library on September 2, 2014rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from


115

tricts as part of a national study on inclusion suggested thatplacement in inclusion programs led to academic gains forstudents with disabilities, including improved performanceon standardized tests, mastery of Individualized Education

Program (IEP) goals, grades, on-task behavior, and motiva-tion to learn (National Center for Educational Restructuringand Inclusion, 1995). These school districts also noted thatplacement in an inclusion program resulted in fewer incom-plete assignments, more positive interactions with peers, andimproved attitudes toward school and learning.

Waldron and McLeskey (1998) compared the readingand math performance of 71 elementary students with learn-ing disabilities (LD) educated in an inclusion program to thatof 73 students with LD who received resource room services.

Although the findings indicated that the students with LDeducated in the inclusion program showed significantly greatergains in reading than their peers who received resource roomservices, no significant differences were found between thetwo groups in terms of their progress in mathematics. More-

over, a significantly greater number of students with mild LDwho were taught in inclusive settings progressed in reading ata rate that paralleled their grade-level peers without disabili-ties than did the students with mild LD who attended resource

room programs. However, there were no significant differ-ences in the reading and math progress of students withsevere LD across the two settings.

Banerji and Dailey (1995) used quantitative and qualita-tive research methods to study the effect of an inclusionprogram on the academic skills of 13 elementary studentswith LD and 17 of their average-achieving classmates. Aca-demic performance measures in reading and writing werecollected after students had been in the inclusion program for

3 months. The results revealed that the reading and writingprogress of the students with LD was similar to the progressof their peers without disabilities.

Baker and Zigmond (1995) conducted five case studiesto investigate the effects of inclusive placements on studentswith LD. The case studies were conducted in elementaryschools in five different states and included one urban school,two suburban schools, and two rural schools. Each school

employed its own model for implementing inclusion anddiffered in terms of such variables as the provision of leader-ship, the motivation to restructure services, the selection ofschool staff to participate, the distribution of students withdisabilities into GE classes, and the provision of SE servicesto students. Baker and Zigmond found that, although theseinclusion programs provided students the opportunity to benefitfrom good general education programs, the students withdisabilities were not provided with &dquo;specially designed instruc-tion&dquo; (p.178) to meet their academic needs.

Data collected on more than 8,000 students with dis-abilities in Grades 7 through 12, whose ages ranged from 13to 21, as part of the National Longitudinal Transition Study(NLTS) also addressed the impact of access to and time spentin inclusive settings on secondary students with disabilities(SRI International, 1993; U.S. Department of Education, 1995).

These data revealed that many secondary students with dis-abilities, especially in the ninth and tenth grades, experiencedhigh rates of failure (e.g., failing report card grades). How-ever, these data also showed that secondary students withdisabilities, particularly with physical disabilities, who took agreater number of GE courses were more likely to (a) attendpostsecondary academic programs; (b) obtain employmentand earn higher salaries; (c) live independently; (d) be sociallyintegrated into their communities; and (e) be married orengaged. However, these findings are open to multiple inter-pretations, as it is possible that students with disabilities whoenroll in more GE classes are more socially and academicallyskilled and that these skills contribute to their likelihood forsuccess after they leave school, rather than their experiencesin inclusion programs.

Several studies have compared the academic impact ofinclusion programs with that of other models for deliveringeducational services to students with disabilities. Marston

(1996) used curriculum-based assessment measures collectedthroughout the school year to compare the reading progress of240 elementary-level students with LD who were educated inthree different instructional models: inclusion only, com-bined services, and pull-out only. Thirty-three of the studentswere educated in an inclusion-only program, in which thespecial and general educators worked collaboratively to deliverinstruction in the GE setting. Thirty-six students were placedin a combined services program, in which the special andgeneral educators collaborated to offer students with disabili-ties instruction in the GE classroom, which was supplementedby instruction in the resource room from the SE teacher. Onehundred seventy-one students were in the pull-out-only con-dition, in which students with disabilities left the GE class-room to receive instruction from an SE teacher who did not

formally collaborate with the students’ GE teacher. The find-ings revealed that the students in the combined services programhad significantly greater gains in their reading performancethan the students who received instruction in either the

inclusion-only classroom or the pull-out-only program.Manset and Semmel (1997) reviewed 11 studies address-

ing the academic outcomes associated with eight differentmodels that employed schoolwide interventions to educatestudents with mild disabilities in GE classrooms. Althoughmethodological problems limited the conclusions regardingthe efficacy of inclusion programs versus pull-out programs,Manset and Semmel concluded that

the evidence presented does suggest that inclusiveprograms for some students with mild disabilitiescan be an effective means of providing services,but the evidence clearly indicates that a model ofwholesale inclusive programming that is superiorto more traditional special education servicedelivery models does not exist at present. (p. 178)

Similarly, in a review of the outcomes of three different inclu-sion programs, Zigmond et al. (1995) reported that approxi-



116

mately 50% of the students with disabilities in these programsfailed to show evidence of increased academic performance.

Several studies have examined the academic performanceof students with disabilities who have been reintegrated intoGE classrooms. Shinn, Powell-Smith, Good, and Baker (1997)used curriculum-based measurements (CBM) to investigatethe reading achievement and progress of students with dis-abilities who were reintegrated into GE classrooms for read-ing instruction for a 12-week period. The findings revealedthat the students’ academic gains paralleled the gains madeby their low-reading classmates without disabilities. In a

similar study, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Fernstrom (1993) comparedthe pre- and posttest CBM mathematics scores of an experi-mental group of students with disabilities reintegrated intoGE classrooms for a 5-month period with those of a controlgroup of students who attended a resource room program.The results indicated that the reintegrated students demon-strated more gains than their peers in resource room programsand achieved at a level that was commensurate with their

low-achieving classmates without disabilities.Using data collected by the Michigan Department of

Education from 1989 to 1993 and interviews with teachersand counselors, Carlson and Parshall (1996) studied the aca-demic adjustment of 51,624 students with disabilities whowere reintegrated into GE classrooms. The findings indicatedthat (a) most of the reintegrated students received good grades;(b) 11 % of the reintegrated students needed to continue toreceive SE services; and (c) 4% of the reintegrated studentsdid not succeed in the GE setting and returned to SE.

Social Outcomes

In addition to examining the impact of placement in the GEsetting on the academic performance of students with dis-abilities, studies also have been conducted to examine thenoneducational, social, and self-concept outcomes for stu-dents with disabilities educated in inclusive settings. Evans,Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, and Hollowood (1992) usedclassroom observations, sociometric analysis, and social com-petence ratings to study the peer interactions and social accep-tance of eight students with severe disabilities and eightrandomly selected students without disabilities educatedtogether in elementary classrooms. Data collected by class-room observations revealed that interactions between the two

groups of students were more often initiated by studentswithout disabilities, and that although these interactionsincluded some elements of play, talking, and physical affec-tion, they tended to be assistive in nature. The observationresults also indicated that, although the number of socialinteractions between students with and without disabilitiesdeclined as the school year progressed, the interactions thatdid occur tended to be more natural. Sociometric data revealed

that, although several of the students with disabilities werevery popular, others were not particularly popular. The find-ings also indicated that the acceptance of the students with

disabilities was not associated with either their social compe-tence or the number of social interactions initiated or received,which caused the researchers to conclude that students withsevere disabilities may be judged differently than their peerswithout disabilities.

Fryxell and Kennedy (1995) used a posttest-only controlgroup design with matched comparisons to contrast the socialrelationships of nine students with severe disabilities educatedin GE classrooms and nine students with severe disabilitieswho received their educational program in a self-contained

SE class. Both groups were matched in terms of gender, age,disability category, social and communication skill levels,and years in attendance at their current schools. Based on datacollected using an educational quality indicators rating scale,the researchers established that the two educational programswere equivalent with respect to staffing, systematic instruc-tion, classroom management, transdisciplinary service deliv-ery, and family/school partnership; the programs differedonly in terms of GE participation. The researchers used directobservations of students and interviews with targeted stu-dents and their teachers to measure the students’ social rela-

tionships in the two different placements. The results revealedthat the students with severe disabilities educated in GE

classrooms had more social contacts and richer friendshipnetworks that included peers without disabilities and providedand received more social support than their peers who wereeducated in self-contained classrooms.

Using a similar research design and procedures, Kennedy,Shukla, and Fryxell (1997) compared the impact of educa-tional placement on the social relationships of intermediateschool students with severe disabilities educated in inclusionclassrooms (n = 8) and SE classrooms (n = 8). The findingsrevealed that the students who were educated in inclusionclassrooms had a greater number of interactions and socialcontacts with students without disabilities, were the recipi-ents of and provided greater levels of social support behav-iors, had larger friendship networks that mostly includedclassmates without disabilities, and had more lasting socialrelationships with students without disabilities.

Vaughn, Elbaum, and Schumm (1996) assessed the effectsof inclusive placements on the social functioning of 16 stu-dents with LD, 27 low-achieving (LA) students, and 21 average/high-achieving (AHA) students. All three groups of studentswere assessed on various measures of social functioning dur-ing the first part and at the end of the school year. The socialfunctioning measures included peer ratings of liking, self-

concept, loneliness, and social alienation. The findings revealedthat (a) the degree to which students in all three groups wereliked by their peers declined over time; (b) the peer accep-tance of the AHA students was higher than the acceptance ofboth the LD and LA students; (c) the self-concept scores of allthree groups were similar with respect to such variables as

appearance, friendship, and self-worth; (d) the students withLD had lower academic self-concept scores over time; (e) thestudents with LD developed a greater number of reciprocalfriendships with other students, which included students from



117

all three groups; and (e) the ratings of loneliness of all threegroups were similar. Furthermore, interviews with GE andSE teachers indicated that they felt that the inclusion place-ment resulted in improvements in the self-concepts of thestudents with LD.

Banerji and Dailey (1995) examined the impact of place-ment in an inclusion classroom on the affective performanceof 13 elementary students with LD and 17 of their nondisabledclassmates. Affective performance indicators relating to atti-tude toward school, motivation, and self-concept were col-lected through a survey that students completed at the end ofthe year. The findings revealed that the two groups of stu-dents did not noticeably differ in terms of the affective out-comes surveyed. Surveys completed by teachers and parentsand anecdotal information indicated that students with LDhad improved levels of self-esteem and motivation and thattheir behavior resembled the behavior of their classmateswithout disabilities.

Sale and Carey (1995) used a positive and negative peernomination strategy to assess the sociometric status of stu-dents with disabilities who attended an inclusive elementaryschool. The elementary school, which served predominatelyWhite students from upper socioeconomic backgrounds, wasstructured so that all students with disabilities (currently eli-gible ; n = 37) and those suspected of having disabilities(likely eligible; n = 29) received their instruction in GEclassrooms. Although the disability categories of the studentsattending the school varied (e.g., students with emotional,physical, or sensory disabilities), the majority of studentswere classified as having LD. The researchers conductedpositive and negative peer nomination interviews in whichthey asked students to identify the three students in their classwhom they liked the most and the three students whom theyliked the least and to give the reasons for their selections. Thefindings revealed that the currently eligible and likely eligiblestudents were less likely to be nominated as most liked andmore likely to be nominated as least liked than their peers.When currently eligible and likely eligible students werecompared, the results indicated that likely eligible studentsreceived more negative peer nominations than students withidentified disabilities.

Roberts and Zubrick (1992) used a correlational designto compare the social status of 97 elementary students withmild disabilities who were partially or fully integrated intoGE classes and 97 GE students without disabilities who weretheir classmates. Data were collected to assess the peer per-ceptions, social status, and attending and disruptive behaviorsof both groups of students as rated by their peers. The find-ings revealed that, although both groups of students wererated as equal in terms of their disruptive behavior, the stu-dents with mild disabilities were less often accepted and moreoften rejected than their classmates without disabilities. Theresults also indicated that, although the social rejection andacceptance of the students with disabilities seemed to berelated to their peers’ perceptions of their disruptive behav-ior, the social rejection and acceptance of their classmates

without disabilities tended to be related to peer perception oftheir academic behavior.

Bear, Clever, and Proctor (1991) studied the impact ofclass placement on the self-perceptions of 52 third-graderswith LD in integrated classes, 163 third-graders withoutdisabilities in integrated classes, and 124 third-graders with-out disabilities who were not educated in integrated classes.In April or May, students in all three groups completed theSelf-Perception Profile (SPP; Renick & Harter, 1989), a self-evaluation scale designed to measure global self-worth, scho-lastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence,physical appearance, and behavioral conduct. The findingsrevealed that the students with LD had significantly lowerself-perceptions in the domains of global self-worth, scholas-tic competence, and behavioral conduct than their peers withoutdisabilities who were educated in the same integrated classes.

Whereas the studies cited above addressed the impact ofinclusive settings on the social outcomes of students withdisabilities, these studies did not examine the effectiveness ofinterventions designed to enhance the social interactions andacceptance of students with disabilities educated in inclusive

settings. Recognizing the need for such studies, Hunt, Alwell,Farron-Davis, and Goetz (1996) used a multiple baselinedesign to assess the efficacy of a package of interventionstrategies designed to facilitate social relationships betweenthree elementary-level students with sensory, physical, andcognitive disabilities and their GE classmates without dis-abilities. The intervention package implemented by theeducational staff included (a) providing information to class-mates without disabilities regarding the ways the studentswith disabilities communicate, (b) facilitating social interac-tions by employing interactive activities, buddy systems, andprompting, and (c) interpreting the behaviors of the studentswith disabilities. The results revealed that the intervention

package led to an increase in the number of reciprocal inter-actions between the students with disabilities and their class-mates and to a decrease in the number of assistive behaviors

engaged in by the educational staff. The findings also indi-cated that the interventions resulted in an increase in thenumber of social interactions initiated by the students withdisabilities. Follow-up interviews with nine classmates with-out disabilities and with the students’ three GE teachers revealedthat the students identified themselves as friends of the stu-dents with disabilities, and that the teachers and studentsbelieved that the various components of the intervention pack-age contributed to the development of friendships betweenboth groups of students.

Attitude Toward Placement

Several studies have been conducted that assess the impact ofinclusion programs on students with disabilities by surveyingand interviewing students concerning their preferences regard-ing service delivery as well as their experiences in GE and SEsettings. As part of a larger study on students’ preferences forservice delivery, Jenkins and Heinen (1989) interviewed 101 1



118

second-, fourth-, and fifth-grade SE students and 236 reme-dial education students concerning the locations in whichthey preferred to receive specialized instruction. The studentsattended classrooms in 15 schools that offered specializedinstruction using a pull-out, in-class, or integrated model.Although the majority of students indicated a preference forreceiving additional assistance from their GE teachers, theresults also revealed that students generally preferred the typeof SE program they were presently receiving. Jenkins andHeinen also found differences based on age, with more olderstudents preferring a pull-out program than their youngerpeers, in part because the older students viewed pull-outprograms as less embarrassing than inclusion programs.

Padeliadu and Zigmond (1996) used structured inter-views to examine the perspectives of 150 elementary-levelstudents with LD regarding their SE placement. The resultsindicated that the students felt the SE setting to be a suppor-tive, enjoyable, and quiet learning environment in whichthey could receive the academic assistance and extra helpthey needed. However, the students also expressed someanxiety over the academic and recreational activities theywere missing while they were pulled out of their GE classes.

Reid and Button (1995) used interviews and narratives

depicting the personal school-based experiences of six sixth-and seventh-grade students with LD. An analysis of the tran-scripts revealed several themes including feelings of angerand frustration associated with being isolated from class-mates in an SE classroom, of victimization as a result of

being the targets of physical attacks, name-calling, and ridi-cule from classmates and teachers, and of being misunder-stood, betrayed, unappreciated, and oppressed by teachers,classmates, and family members. In a similar study, Albinger(1995) analyzed the results of open-ended interviews withfive elementary students with LD who received resourceroom services. The students’ responses indicated that, althoughthey liked coming to the resource room for individualizedassistance, they perceived the experience of exiting their GEclassroom to receive specialized services as an embarrassingsituation that created the need to fabricate stories to justify totheir friends why they were leaving class. The students alsoreported that they were targets of name-calling, and that theywere concerned about completing work in their GE class-room that was assigned while they were in the resource room.

Guterman (1995) employed unstructured individual andgroup interviews to examine the perceptions and experiencesof nine high school students with LD who received theireducational program in a self-contained SE class. The stu-

dents’ initial SE placement made them feel concerned abouttheir status and the loss of their friends as well as stigmatizedand personally deficient. The students also reported that theyperceived the academic instruction they received in their SEclassroom as low-level, not related to their lives, repetitive,unchallenging, and ineffective. The respondents also expressednegative attitudes toward inclusion, which were based ontheir previous negative experiences in GE settings that includedencounters with teachers who failed to adapt instruction tomeet their unique learning needs. The students also consid-

ered inclusion unrealistic, because they felt that it was unrea-sonable to ask their GE teachers to adapt instruction to theirlearning needs and that such instructional modifications wouldresult in their being stigmatized in the presence of their peers.

Summary

In summary, the studies reviewed reveal that the impact ofplacement in inclusive settings on academic and social per-formance and on attitude toward placement of students withdisabilities has been varied. Studies have reported that place-ment in inclusion programs has resulted in improved edu-cational outcomes for students with disabilities, includingimproved standardized test scores, reading performance, mas-tery of IEP goals, grades, on-task behavior, motivation tolearn, and greater success in making the transition to adult-hood. However, other studies indicated that students withdisabilities educated in inclusive settings did not receive spe-cially designed instruction to meet their educational needs.Furthermore, studies comparing the various models for deliv-ering educational services to students with disabilities indi-cated that, although inclusion programs can be effective servicedelivery systems for meeting the educational needs of somestudents with mild disabilities, other students with mild dis-abilities perform better academically when they receive theireducational programs through traditional SE service deliverymodels such as a pull-out resource room program.

Several studies have used observations and sociometric

techniques to examine the social interaction patterns betweenstudents with severe disabilities and their classmates without

disabilities. Although some studies found that students withsevere disabilities in inclusion programs interact with others

more often, receive and offer increased levels of social sup-port, and develop more long-lasting and richer friendshipswith their GE peers, research also indicated that these inter-

actions are often assistive in nature, and tend to decline as the

school year progresses.Other studies have employed rating scales, surveys, and

interviews to assess the effects of inclusive placements on thesocial functioning of students with mild disabilities. Althoughsome studies report that students with mild disabilities edu-cated in inclusion programs develop reciprocal friendshipswith other students, have self-concepts and attitudes towardschool measures that are similar to those of their class-

mates without disabilities, and are rated as equal of their peerswithout disabilities in terms of disruptive behavior, otherstudies indicate that they are less often accepted and moreoften rejected by their classmates without disabilities and thatthey have lower self-perceptions than their peers withoutdisabilities.

Several studies have examined the impact of inclusionprograms on students with disabilities by surveying and inter-viewing them concerning their preferences regarding servicedelivery as well as their experiences in GE and SE settings.Although research has indicated that some elementary stu-dents consider the individualized services they receive in anSE classroom to help them academically, students also were



119

concerned about the recreational and academic activities theyare missing when they are pulled out of their GE classrooms.Elementary students with disabilities also reported that leav-ing the GE classroom for specialized services was embarrass-ing for them and caused them to be targets of name-callingand ridicule from their peers. Interviews with secondary-levelstudents with disabilities indicated that they had negativeexperiences in both general and special education. Negativeexperiences in GE related to the failure of their teachers toadapt instruction to meet their needs and to the fear that theirspecial accommodations resulted in their being stigmatized inthe presence of their peers. Negative experiences in SE includedreceiving low-level, repetitive, and unchallenging academicinstruction; being concerned about their status and the loss offriends; and feeling stigmatized.

IMPACT ON STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES

Academic Outcomes

An important factor in considering the effectiveness of inclu-sion programs is the effect of the program on the academicand social behaviors of students without disabilities. Hollo-

wood, Salisbury, Rainforth, and Palombaro (1994) investi-gated the impact of the placement in an inclusion classroomon the amount of instructional time and teacher attention thatstudents without disabilities received. The researchers col-lected and compared data related to actual and allocatedinstructional time for six students without disabilities whowere educated in classes that included students with severedisabilities and for six students without disabilities who were

taught in noninclusion classes. The results revealed that theplacement of students with severe disabilities in inclusiveclassrooms did not have a significant effect on the amount ofallocated or engaged instructional time devoted to their peerswithout disabilities. Hollowood et al. also found that the ratesof interruptions to planned instructional activities were simi-lar in both types of classes.

Sharpe, York, and Knight (1994) used a pretest-posttestresearch design to examine the impact of being educated in aninclusive classroom on the academic performance of elemen-tary students without disabilities. They contrasted measuresof academic performance for 35 students who attended class-rooms that included 2 students with significant disabilitieswith the academic performance and behavior of their peerswithout disabilities who were taught in classes that did notinclude students with moderate or significant disabilities. Thefindings indicated that there were no significant differencesbetween the two groups on measures of academic perfor-mance and behavior that included the Science Research Associ-ates Assessment Survey (Science Research Associates, 1975),the Houghton Mifflin (1982) reading series, and the students’report card grades for reading, mathematics, spelling, and effort.

Hunt, Staub, Alwell, and Goetz (1994) used a pretest-posttest design to compare the achievement of targeted math-ematics objectives of 10 students without disabilities who

participated in cooperative learning groups with their class-mates with disabilities with a control group of 10 studentswithout disabilities who were members of cooperative learn-ing groups that did not include students with disabilities. Theresults revealed that both groups significantly increased theirmastery of the targeted mathematics objectives and that stu-dents without disabilities who participated in cooperativelearning groups with students with disabilities performed aswell as the students without disabilities in the control group.

Saint-Laurent et al. (1998) examined the academic impactof placement in an inclusion program on third-grade studentswithout disabilities. The researchers compared the reading,mathematics, and writing performance of 209 students with-out disabilities who were educated in an inclusion programand 232 students without disabilities who were educated in atraditional GE classroom not including students with disabili-ties. The findings revealed that the reading and mathematicsperformance of the students without disabilities in the inclu-sion program was significantly better than that of their peerswho were educated in the traditional GE program. However,there were no significant differences in the writing perfor-mance of the two groups.

Social Outcomes

Research addressing the social impact of inclusion programson students without disabilities also has attempted to examinethe perspectives and experiences of elementary, middle school,and high school students without disabilities in inclusionprograms. Biklen, Corrigan, and Quick (1989) interviewedelementary-level students without disabilities whose agesranged from 9 to 11 concerning their experiences in inclusivesettings. These students’ responses indicated that they feltthat inclusion programs helped them to understand individualdifferences in physical appearance and behavior, the connec-tion between their experiences and the feelings of studentswith disabilities, and the worth of their peers.

Staub, Schwartz, Gallucci, and Peck (1994) used class-room observations, videotape recordings, and semistructuredinterviews to study the relationship between four elementary-level students without disabilities and four students with mod-erate and severe disabilities who were educated in the sameGE classroom. The findings indicated that the friendshipssatisfied some of the personal needs of the students withoutdisabilities, including being viewed as important; recogniz-ing one’s strengths; finding companionship, security, andcomfort; and being consistent with the values of one’s family.However, although all four friendships originated duringnoninstructional activities, as the friendships developed threeof the students without disabilities assumed a caretaking rolethat was encouraged by their teachers and teacher aides.

Capper and Pickett (1994) conducted focus group inter-views with 46 students who attended a traditionally struc-tured school and 46 students who attended an inclusive schoolto compare the effects of a noninclusion-based school and aninclusion-based school on middle school students’ perspec-tives of diversity and inclusion. They reported that students at



120

the inclusion-based school showed an increased acceptance,understanding, and tolerance of individual differences. Incontrast, the students attending the noninclusion school weremore likely to engage in stereotyping and held more negativeperceptions of diversity and students with disabilities.

York, Vandercook, Macdonald, Heise-Neff, and Caughey(1992) surveyed 181 middle school students without disabili-ties concerning their reactions to being in inclusion classeswith students with severe disabilities. The findings indicatedthat these students (a) overwhelmingly felt that inclusion wasa good idea; (b) believed that being in GE classrooms resultedin positive outcomes for students with disabilities, particu-larly in terms of social and interpersonal skills; and (c) devel-oped more realistic and positive perspectives concerning theirclassmates with disabilities.

Hendrickson, Shokoohi-Yekta, Hamre-Nietupski, andGable (1996) surveyed 1,137 middle and high school studentswithout disabilities regarding their friendships with peerswith severe disabilities. The results revealed that the students

without disabilities were willing to form friendships withtheir peers with severe disabilities and believed that inclusionfacilitated the development of such friendships. The studentsalso suggested several strategies for promoting friendshipsamong students, including using cooperative grouping arrange-ments, sharing information about disabilities, and implement-ing social activities that promote interactions between students.

Murray-Seegert (1989) used ethnographic research pro-cedures to examine the social relationships between highschool students without disabilities and their peers with dis-

abilities during a 1-year period. The students without disabili-ties reported that their experiences in inclusive settings hadseveral benefits for them, including learning from their class-mates with disabilities, experiencing positive feelings as aresult of supporting another individual, and being better ableto deal with disability in their own lives.

Helmstetter, Peck, and Giangreco (1994) administered asurvey to 166 high school students without disabilities toinvestigate their perceptions of their relationships with stu-dents with moderate and severe disabilities. The results indi-

cated that they perceived their friendships with students withdisabilities as beneficial in terms of increased personal growth,acceptance of others, and human diversity. Some of the stu-dents without disabilities also reported that the communica-tion difficulties of their peers with moderate and severe

disabilities were a barrier that interfered with their relation-

ships.Peck, Donaldson, and Pezzoli (1990) conducted semi-

structured interviews with 21 high school students withoutdisabilities regarding their social relationships with class-mates with moderate and severe disabilities. The findingsshowed that, although students without disabilities felt thatthey had improved in the areas of self-concept, social cog-nition, acceptance of others, advancement of individual

principles, and tolerance of human differences, they alsoexperienced discomfort with the lack of social skills dis-

played by students with moderate and severe disabilities.

Some students also reported initial discomfort with the physi-cal appearance and behavioral characteristics (e.g., coughingand drooling) of some students with disabilities, which tendedto decrease over the school year.

Summary

The studies reviewed reveal that placement in an inclusionclassroom does not interfere with the academic performanceof students without disabilities with respect to the amount ofallocated and engaged instructional time, the rate of interrup-tions to planned activities, and the students’ achievement testscores and report card grades. The results of these studies alsoindicate that students without disabilities possess positiveviews of inclusion and believe that inclusion benefits them in

terms of an increased acceptance, understanding, and toler-ance of individual differences; a greater awareness and sensi-

tivity to the needs of others; greater opportunities to havefriendships with students with disabilities; and an improvedability to deal with disability in their own lives. Concernsabout being in an inclusion classroom related to the commu-nication difficulties and physical and behavioral characteris-tics of some of the students with disabilities.

IMPACT ON EDUCATORS

Attitudes Toward Inclusion

Because the cooperation of educators is critical to the successof inclusion programs, several studies have investigated thereactions of general and special educators toward inclusiveeducation. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) used research syn-thesis procedures to summarize the results of 28 studies exam-ining GE teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. The findingsrevealed that, although about two thirds of the general educa-tors supported the placement of students with disabilities inGE classrooms, only one third or fewer of the teachers reportedthat they had the time, expertise, training, or resources toimplement inclusion effectively.

Several researchers have examined educators’ attitudestoward educating students with disabilities in GE settings bysurveying their agreement with statements that relate to theprinciples on which inclusion programs are based. Coates(1989) surveyed 88 kindergarten to twelfth-grade GE teach-ers regarding their views of the Regular Education Initiative(REI) and the use of pull-out programs to serve students withdisabilities. The findings revealed that GE teachers not onlybelieved in the effectiveness of resource rooms but also sup-

ported their expansion to serve students who were not certi-fied to receive SE services. The teachers also expressedskepticism about whether students with mild disabilities couldbe educated in GE classrooms even with additional teacher

training and support (e.g., curriculum consultant, SE consul-tant). In a related study, Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, andLesar ( 1991 ) surveyed 311 GE and 70 SE teachers about their



121

perceptions and opinions concerning the REI. The resultsrevealed that a majority of educators surveyed were satisfiedwith a pull-out system for delivering SE services and believedthat full-time placement of students with mild disabilities inGE classrooms would not be socially or academically benefi-cial. Although most of the teachers felt that the reallocation ofSE resources to GE classrooms would lighten their instruc-tional load and benefit all students, they were protective ofthe resources designated for students with disabilities.

Soodak, Podell, and Lehman (1998) surveyed 134 (71.3%)elementary, 34 ( 18.1 %) middle, and 20 (10.6%) high schoolGE teachers concerning their affective responses to inclusion,as well as the factors that related to these responses. Of the

188 teachers surveyed, 67 (35.6%) taught in classrooms thatincluded students with disabilities. The findings revealed thatteachers’ responses to inclusion are complex and influencedby a variety of factors. In terms of teachers’ affective responsesto inclusion, the researchers distinguished two types ofresponses, hostility/receptivity and anxiety/calmness. Further-more, the findings indicated that both types of responses wererelated to teacher attributes, student disability categories, andschool-based conditions. Teachers who possessed low teach-ing efficacy (i.e., teachers’ beliefs about the impact of theirteaching), who lacked experience in teaching, or who had lowuse of differentiated teaching practices and teacher collabora-tion were found to be less receptive to inclusion. Whereas theteachers reported that they felt threatened by the inclusion ofstudents with cognitive disabilities (e.g., mental retardation)and frustrated by the inclusion of students with LD or behav-ior disorders, they were more receptive to the inclusion ofstudents with physical disabilities or hearing impairments.With experience, teachers became less receptive to the inclusionof students with LD. However, with respect to the anxiety/calmness dimension, the teachers reported less anxiety towardthe inclusion of students with learning or behavior problemsthan toward the inclusion of students with other disabilities.

Measures of teachers’ personal efficacy (i.e., teachers’ beliefsabout their own effectiveness) correlated with less anxietyabout inclusion, and collaboration among teachers was alsofound to lessen teachers’ anxiety about inclusion. Not sur-prisingly, larger class sizes were found to heighten teachers’anxiety about inclusion.

Implementation Concerns

In addition to studying educators’ attitudes toward varioustenets associated with inclusion, researchers also have exam-ined the experiences and perceptions of educators working ininclusive settings. Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman,and Schattman (1993) conducted semistructured interviewsto investigate the experiences of 19 kindergarten throughninth-grade GE teachers who had taught a student with severedisabilities. The interviews were followed by a survey thatasked the teachers to rate the extent to which their attitudes

toward inclusion had changed. They also were asked to ratetheir willingness to have a student with significant disabilities

in their classroom in the future. Although two of the teachersreported no change from their initial negative feelings towardinclusion, the results of the interviews and survey data indi-cated that most of the teachers (17 out of 19) experienced achange that resulted in positive attitudes toward the place-ment of students with severe disabilities in their classrooms.The interviews with the teachers suggested that this change inattitude was related to seeing how the effective instructionaladaptations that they instituted for students with disabilitiesbenefited all students. The change also included increasedownership and willingness to interact with students with dis-abilities, enhanced knowledge of ways to teach students withdisabilities, and changed attitudes toward the placement of astudent with significant disabilities in their classroom. Theteachers also identified other personal benefits of inclusion,such as a greater awareness of the impact of teachers aspositive role models for students, an increased feeling ofconfidence and pride in their ability to teach and be open tochange, and a growing willingness to modify their instruc-tional techniques to promote the learning of all students intheir class.

Downing, Eichinger, and Williams (1997) conductedstructured interviews with nine general educators, nine spe-cial educators, and nine principals concerning their views ofand experiences with inclusive programming for elementary-level students with severe disabilities. The respondents workedin three different types of educational programs: full inclusion,partial integration, and no inclusive educational experienceswith elementary students with severe disabilities. Althoughall groups had positive views of inclusion and felt that inclu-sion was a good use of district resources, they identified thenegative attitudes of GE and SE teachers and parents andthe limited availability of financial resources as barriers to theimplementation of inclusion. General educators expressedthe concern that meeting the needs of students with disabili-ties created an added demand on teachers’ time and attention,thus limiting their ability to address the needs of studentswithout disabilities. The concerns of special educators relatedto their perceived loss of control over the classroom environ-ment and their job functions.

Villa, Thousand, Myers, and Nevin (1996) surveyed 578GE and 102 SE teachers and administrators working in inclu-sion programs to examine their perceptions of the inclusion ofall students, particularly students with moderate and severedisabilities in GE classrooms. The results indicated that the

respondents preferred inclusion programs in which educatorsworked collaboratively to serve all students in GE classroomsover pull-out programs. Respondents believed that the fol-lowing variables were robust predictors of positive attitudestoward inclusion of all students with disabilities in GE class-rooms : collaborative consultation, co-teaching partnerships,shared accountability for educational outcomes, level ofpreservice and inservice training, and administrative support.

York et al. (1992) surveyed 11 general educators and 7 spe-cial educators who worked in integrated middle school set-tings concerning various aspects of educating middle school



122

students with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Both

groups of respondents indicated that inclusion resulted inpositive outcomes for GE and SE teachers. Positive outcomesfor GE teachers included getting to know new colleagues,being more receptive to and skilled at integrating studentswith disabilities in their classes, and being better able tomeet the needs of their students without disabilities who were

experiencing difficulty in school. Positive outcomes for SEteachers included an increased feeling of being an importantpart of the school community, an enhanced perspective oneducation and knowledge of the GE system, and a greaterenjoyment of teaching related to working with students with-out disabilities and observing the successful functioning oftheir students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings.General and special educators also reported that a high levelof communication between educators was an important com-ponent of successful inclusion.

As part of a larger study, York and Tundidor (1995)conducted focus group discussions with 191 general and spe-cial educators, administrators, and support staff who workedin elementary and secondary schools in a midwestem urbancommunity to examine issues and barriers related to the imple-mentation of inclusive education. The issues and barriersidentified by the participants included the negative attitudesheld by staff members and students without disabilities, theconcern that the education of students without disabilities

might suffer, and the inability of the GE staff to address thesevere health and medical needs and behavioral challenges ofstudents with disabilities. Other perceived barriers to inclu-sion were the lack of funds to support personnel and instruc-tional needs, the rigid requirements associated with the GEcurriculum, and the limited amount of time for collaborationand communication among staff members.

A survey was conducted by Werts, Wolery, Snyder,Caldwell, and Salisbury (1996) to identify 1,430 elementaryteachers’ perceptions regarding the need for and availabilityof supports and resources associated with inclusive school-

ing. Respondents’ ratings were separated into three groups:teachers who did not teach students with disabilities, teachersof students with mild disabilities, and teachers with studentswith more severe disabilities. All three groups of respondentsreported having similar levels of resources and supports avail-able to them. The responses of the two groups of teachers of

students with disabilities indicated that their need for most

resources and supports exceeded their availability, with agreater percentage of the teachers of students with severedisabilities indicating a greater need for resources and sup-ports than the teachers of students with mild disabilities.

Collaborative TeachingStudies also have examined the experiences of GE and SEteachers who have implemented inclusion by working ascollaborative teaching teams. Minke, Bear, Deemer, and Griffin(1996) reported survey results of 318 teachers of studentswith mild disabilities (185 GE teachers in traditional class-

rooms, 64 SE teachers in inclusive settings, 69 GE teachers ininclusive settings). They found that general and special edu-cators working collaboratively in inclusive settings had higherlevels of personal efficacy and higher self-ratings of compe-tence and satisfaction in teaching students with disabilitiesthan general educators who taught in traditional classroomarrangements.

Phillips, Sapona, and Lubic (1995) interviewed six gen-eral educators and four special educators regarding their expe-riences in working as a collaborative team to teach studentswith mild and severe disabilities in elementary-level GE set-tings. The teachers’ responses indicated that, although theyinitially experienced some anxiety, most of the collaborativeteams evolved into a unit that was characterized by engagingin shared planning and curriculum development, learningfrom each other, developing trust and solving problemstogether, and enjoying their teaching partnerships. However,two of the collaborative teams were not successful because oftheir inability to communicate with each other, to resolveteaching style differences, and to integrate the SE teacher andthe students with disabilities into the classroom.

The respondents also identified the impact of their col-laborative efforts for teachers. Benefits for teachers includedthe opportunity to teach students with a full range of learningabilities, to feel less isolated, and to observe positive changesin students with and without disabilities. Concerns identified

by SE teachers included performing a subordinate role in theGE classroom and worrying that inclusion would result in theloss of specialized services and instruction to students withspecial needs.

Walther-Thomas (1997) used classroom observations,semistructured interviews, relevant school documents, andinformal contacts to study the experiences of 18 elementaryand 7 middle school co-teaching teams. Because of personnelchanges over the 3-year duration of the study, the 25 teamsconsisted of 119 teachers and 24 administrators who workedin inclusive classrooms that served students with mild andsevere disabilities. The respondents reported several socialand academic benefits for their students with and without

disabilities, but the participants also identified the bene-fits to and problems experienced by educators working inco-teaching teams. Benefits for general and special educatorsincluded greater professional satisfaction as well as increasedopportunities to share their expertise with others, to exploreand expand their professional capabilities, to receive personaland professional support from others, and to collaborate on abuilding- and district-wide basis. The problems noted byrespondents related to scheduling planning time for teachers,coordinating the schedules of students and teachers, main-taining appropriate caseloads, obtaining administrative sup-port, and receiving staff development.

Salend et al. (1997) investigated the perceptions andexperiences of a cooperative teaching team (a GE and an SEteacher) by analyzing the dyad’s journal entries. Commentsin their journal indicated that both team members initiallyapproached their co-teaching experience with concerns regard-



123

ing teaching space, role delineations, teaching styles, andphilosophical differences. However, subsequent journal entriesindicated that collaborative teaching served to make teachingmore enjoyable and stimulating, to encourage the teachers toexperiment with new teaching methodologies, and to preventthe isolation that some teachers encounter when they workalone.

Summary

In summary, the studies reviewed reveal that educators have

varying attitudes toward and mixed reactions to inclusion.Teachers’ responses to inclusion programs are shaped by avariety of variables and change over time. Teachers’ percep-tions of inclusion seem to be related to their success in

implementing inclusion, to student characteristics, and to theavailability of financial resources, instructional and ancillarysupportive services, training, administrative support, and timeto collaborate and communicate with others.

Research has identified several positive and negativeoutcomes of inclusion for teachers. Positive outcomes for GEteachers included increasing skill at meeting the needs oftheir students with and without disabilities, being more awareof the impact of teachers as positive role models for all

students, developing an increased confidence in their teach-ing ability, and feeling good about their ability to change.Concerns identified by general educators included the nega-tive attitudes of others, the fear that the education of studentswithout disabilities might suffer, the inability of GE staff toaddress the severe health and medical needs and behavioral

challenges of students with disabilities, the lack of funds tosupport personnel and instructional needs, the rigid require-ments associated with the GE curriculum, the limited amountof time for collaboration and communication among staff

members, and the limited availability of financial resources.For special educators, the benefits included an increased

feeling of being an important part of the school community,an enhanced perspective on education and knowledge of theGE system, and a greater enjoyment of teaching related toworking with students without disabilities and observing thesuccessful functioning of their students with disabilities ininclusive settings. The concerns of special educators relatedto their perceived loss of control over the classroom environ-ment, their subordinate role in the GE classroom, and theirfears that inclusion would result in the loss of specializedservices to students with disabilities.

General and special educators participating in coopera-tive teaching arrangements noted that their involvement inthese programs enriched their professional and personal lives.Although cooperative teaching teams initially experiencedsome anxiety, teachers reported that these instructional arrange-ments helped make teaching more enjoyable and stimulating,encouraged the teachers to experiment with new teachingmethodologies, and prevented the isolation that some teach-ers encounter when they work alone. Problems encounteredby cooperating teaching teams related to communicating with

each other, resolving teaching style differences, coordinatingthe responsibilities of both teachers, scheduling planning time,coordinating the schedules of students and teachers, main-taining appropriate caseloads, obtaining administrative sup-port, and receiving staff development.

DISCUSSION

The findings of the studies cited in this review indicate thatthe impact of inclusion programs on the academic and socialperformance of students with disabilities is varied. Whereassome studies suggest that inclusion more often results in

positive academic and social outcomes for students with dis-abilities, other studies indicate that some students with disabil-ities benefit academically when they receive their educationalprograms through traditional SE service delivery models.Although several factors may contribute to this inconclusivefinding, important variables seem to be the quality of theinclusion program and the extent to which the GE systemaccommodates the academic and social needs of studentswith disabilities in inclusion programs (Waldron & McLeskey,1998). For example, Fox and Ysseldyke (1997) examined aninclusion program that was not successfully implemented andfound that, because of inadequate training and a lack ofadministrative leadership, GE teachers did not make signifi-cant modifications in their teaching strategies to address theneeds of students with disabilities. Similarly, Salend, Brooks,and Salend (1987) surveyed educators responsible for coordi-nating their school districts’ mainstreaming efforts and foundthat few of the districts employed systematic and viable pro-cedures that were based on the quality indicators associatedwith successful inclusion programs.

The research suggests that students without disabilitiescan benefit from placement in inclusion programs. The prin-cipal benefits include an increased acceptance, understand-ing, and tolerance of individual differences and the developmentof meaningful friendships with classmates with disabilities.However, MacMillan, Gresham, and Fomess (1996) sug-gested that contact with students with disabilities in itselfdoes not result in favorable attitudes toward and improvedacceptance of individuals with disabilities. They reported thatthe nature and quality of the interactions affected attitudestoward students with disabilities. Furthermore, they notedthat when students with disabilities engaged in objectionableactions in interactions with their GE peers, these behaviorscould result in less favorable attitudes toward individualswith disabilities. Therefore, to implement inclusion programsthat have positive outcomes for students with and withoutdisabilities, educators need to assist students with disabilitiesin developing the appropriate social and behavioral skills thatallow them to be integrated into the social and academicfabric of the class (Salend, 1998). Educators also can use avariety of strategies to make learning about individual differ-ences and facilitating friendships among students integralparts of their curriculum (Salisbury, Gallucci, Palombaro, &



124

Peck, 1995) and to teach students with and without disabili-ties how to initiate, respond to, and maintain positive, equal-status social interactions with their peers (Elksnin & Elksnin,1995; Hunt et al., 1996).

General and special educators seemed to have mixedreactions to inclusion. Their varied responses seem to berelated to their efficacy in implementing inclusion, which inturn is associated with the administrative support, resources,and training they have received to implement effective inclu-sion programs. Therefore, school districts and administratorscan engage in several activities that demonstrate their com-mitment to and support of inclusive education. School dis-tricts can begin to promote the success of inclusion programsby including all school and community groups in developinga mission statement that articulates the district’s vision with

respect to educating students with disabilities in GE class-rooms and a strategic plan for providing instructional andphysical resources, time to collaborate and communicate,training, and support to achieve its mission statement (Idol,1997; Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995). For example,administrators can institute flexible scheduling that providesteachers with sufficient time to collaborate and to coordinatethe delivery of the services they provide to students (Idol,1997; Walther-Thomas, 1997). Administrators, in conjunc-tion with institutions of higher education, also can offer ongo-ing preservice and inservice personnel training to provideteachers with the skills to teach students in inclusive settingsand work together as a cooperative teaching team (Downinget al., 1997; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).

The conclusions of this article should be interpreted withseveral cautions that are related to the limitations associated

with the research studies reviewed. First, whereas some of thestudies cited employed small-sample quantitative researchdesigns, the majority of the studies reviewed employed quali-tative research methodologies, had small sample sizes, lackedrandom selection of participants, and focused for the mostpart on the impact of inclusive practices for students with LDand students with moderate and severe disabilities educatedin elementary classrooms. These limitations make it difficultto generalize the findings to the larger population of studentswith disabilities, especially to students with disabilities edu-cated in secondary-level settings. Second, the research oninclusion is limited by problems related to comparative fieldinvestigations in education such as identifying and describingthe treatment conditions associated with control and experi-mental groups; insuring equivalent resources, students, andteachers; and defining the components of inclusion programs(Manset & Semmel, 1997). Third, the responses of participantsto surveys and interviews may be affected by the respon-dents’ desire to give socially acceptable responses that maynot accurately reflect their actual attitudes toward and experi-ences with inclusion.

Future research is needed to address some of these limi-

tations and to expand our knowledge of inclusive practices.Given the unique needs of students with emotional distur-bances and students with physical and sensory disabilities,

research needs to examine the impact of inclusion on thesestudents. Similarly, because the implementation of inclusionat the secondary level may be quite different from that at thepreschool and elementary levels (Thousand, Rosenberg, Bishop,& Villa, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 1996), there isa need for studies that investigate inclusive practices in

secondary-level settings. Future studies also should employmethodologically sound qualitative and quantitative researchprocedures to empirically examine the effects of inclusion pro-grams and include multiple measures and strategies for assess-ing a broad spectrum of educational and social outcomes forstudents and educators involved in inclusive education.

The inclusion movement has the potential to have apositive impact on students with and without disabilities andtheir teachers. However, these positive outcomes are notbeing realized for some students placed in inclusive settings,which can result in a concomitant negative reaction to inclu-sion on the part of their teachers. Researchers and schooldistricts need to work together to validate and disseminateinformation about effective inclusion practices, policies, andprograms that address the needs of students and teachers. m

SPENCER J. SALEND, EdD, is a professor of special education in theDepartment of Educational Studies at the State University of New York atNew Paltz. His research interests relate to educating students with disabili-ties in general education classrooms and meeting the educational needs ofstudents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, includingmigrant students with disabilities. LAUREL M. GARRICK DUHANEY,PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Studies atthe State University of New York at New Paltz. Her research interestsinclude inclusion of students with disabilities in general education class-rooms and learning styles of students from culturally and linguisticallydiverse backgrounds. Address: Spencer J. Salend, Department of Educa-tional Studies, SUNY at New Paltz, 75 South Manheim Blvd., New Paltz,NY 12561.

REFERENCES

Albinger, P. (1995). Stories from the resource room: Piano lessons, imagi-nary illness, and broken-down cars. Journal of Learning Disabilities,28, 615-621.

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclu-sion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implicationsfrom five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 163-180.

Banerji, M., & Dailey, R. A. (1995). A study of the effects of an inclusionmodel on students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 28, 511-522.

Bear, G. G., Clever, A., & Proctor, W. A. (1991). Self-perceptions ofnonhandicapped children and children with learning disabilities in inte-grated classes. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 409-429.

Bennett, T., DeLuca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into prac-tice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64,115-131.

Biklen, D., Corrigan, C., & Quick, D. (1989). Beyond obligation: Students’relations with each other in integrated classes. In D. Lipsky & A. Gartner

(Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all (pp. 207-221). Baltimore: Brookes.

Capper, C. A., & Pickett, R. S. (1994). The relationship between schoolstructure and culture and student views of diversity and inclusive edu-cation. The Special Education Leadership Review, 2, 102-122.



125

Carlson, E., & Parshall, L. (1996). Academic, social, and behavioral adjust-ment for students declassified from special education. Exceptional Chil-dren, 63, 89-100.

Coates, R. D. (1989). The regular education initiative and opinions of regu-lar classroom teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 532-536.

Downing, J. E., Eichinger, J., & Williams, L. J. (1997). Inclusive educationfor students with severe disabilities: Comparative views of principalsand educators at different levels of implementation. Remedial and Spe-cial Education, 18, 133-142, 165.

Elksnin, L. K., & Elksnin, N. (1995). Teaching social skills to students

with learning disabilities. LD Forum, 20, 16-19.Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro, M. M., Berryman, J., & Hollo-

wood, T. M. (1992). Acceptance of elementary-aged children with severedisabilities in an inclusive school. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 17, 205-212.

Ferguson, D. L. (1996). Is it inclusion yet? Bursting the bubbles. In M. S.Berres, D. L. Ferguson, P. Knoblock, & C. Woods (Eds.), Creatingtomorrow’s schools today: Stories of inclusion, change, and renewal(pp. 16-37). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fox, N. E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middleschool level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children,64, 81-98.

Fryxell, D., & Kennedy, C. (1995). Placement along the continuum of ser-vices and its impact on students’ social relationships. Journal of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 259-269.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approachto special education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmentalprogramming and curriculum-based measurement. American EducationalResearch Journal, 30, 149-177.

Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R.

(1993). ’I’ve counted Jon’: Transformational experiences of teacherseducating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., Cloninger, C., & Dennis, R. (1993). Mychild has a classmate with severe disabilities: What parents of non-disabled children think about full inclusion. Developmental DisabilitiesBulletin, 21, 77-91.

Gibb, G. S., Young, J. R., Allred, K. W., Dyches, T. T., Egan, M. W., &

Ingram, C. F. (1997). A team-based junior high inclusion program:Parent perceptions and feedback. Remedial and Special Education, 18,243-249, 256.

Green, S. K., & Shinn, M. R. (1994). Parent attitudes about special educa-tion and reintegration: What is the role of student outcomes? Excep-tional Children, 61, 269-281.

Guterman, B. R. (1995). The validity of learning disabilities services: Theconsumer’s view. Exceptional Children, 62, 111-124.

Helmstetter, E., Peck, C. A., & Giangreco, M. F. (1994). Outcomes ofinteractions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A state-

wide survey of high school students. Journal of the Association of Per-sons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 263-276.

Hendrickson, J. M., Shokoohi-Yekta, M., Hamre-Nietupski, S., & Gable,R. A. (1996). Middle and high school students’ perceptions on beingfriends with peers with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63,19-28.

Hollowood, T. M., Salisbury, C. L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M. M.(1994). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students withand without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242-253.

Houghton Mifflin (1982). Administrator’s guide to the Houghton Mifflinreading program. Boston: Author.

Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating sociallysupportive environments for fully included students who experiencemultiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 21, 53-71.

Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by allstudents within the context of cooperative learning groups. Journal ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290-301.

Idol, L. (1997). Key questions related to building collaborative and inclu-sive schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 384-394.

Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., & Raynes, M. (1995). Integratingstudents with moderate and severe disabilities into general educationclasses. Exceptional Children, 61, 425-439.

Jenkins, J. R., & Heinen, A. (1989). Students’ preferences for service

delivery: Pull-out, in-class, or integrated models. Exceptional Children,55, 516-523.

Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects ofeducational placement on the social relationships of intermediate schoolstudents with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31-47.

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Full inclu-sion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 145-159.

Manset, G., & Semmel, M. I. (1997). Are inclusive programs for studentswith mild disabilities effective? A comparative review of model pro-grams. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 155-180.

Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, andcombined service models for students with mild disabilities. The Jour-

nal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teach-

ers’ experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special edu-cation reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186.

Murray-Seegert, C. (1989). Nasty girls, thugs, and humans like us: Socialrelations between severely disabled and nondisabled students in highschool. Baltimore: Brookes.

National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995).National study of inclusion. New York: Author.

Padeliadu, S., & Zigmond, N. (1996). Perspectives of students with learn-ing disabilities about special education placement. Learning Disabili-ties Research & Practice, 11, 15-23.

Peck, C. A., Donaldson, J., & Pezzoli, M. (1990). Some benefits nonhandi-capped adolescents perceive for themselves from their social relation-ships with peers who have severe handicaps. Journal of the Associationfor Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 241-249.

Phillips, L., Sapona, R. H., & Lubic, B. L., (1995). Developing partner-ships in inclusive education: One school’s approach. Intervention inSchool and Clinic, 30, 262-272.

Reid, D. K., & Button, L. J. (1995). Anna’s story: Narratives of personalexperience about being labeled learning disabled. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 28, 602-614.

Renick, M. J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on thedeveloping self-perceptions of learning disabled students. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 81, 631-638.

Roberts, C., & Zubrick, S. (1992). Factors influencing the social status ofchildren with mild academic disabilities in regular classrooms. Excep-tional Children, 59, 192-202.

Saint-Laurent, L., Dionne, J., Giasson, J., Royer, E., Simard, C., & Pierard,B. (1998). Academic achievement effects of an in-class service model onstudents with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 239-253.

Sale, P., & Carey, D. M. (1995). The sociometric status of students withdisabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6-19.

Salend, S. J. (1998). Effective mainstreaming: Creating inclusive classrooms(3rd. ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Salend, S. J., Brooks, L., & Salend, S. (1987). Identifying school districts’policies for implementing mainstreaming. The Pointer, 32, 34-37.

Salend, S. J., Johansen, M., Mumper, J., Chase, A., Pike, K. M., & Dorney,J. A. (1997). Cooperative teaching: The voices of two teachers. Reme-dial and Special Education, 18, 3-11.

Salisbury, C. L., Gallucci, C., Palombaro, M. M., & Peck, C. A. (1995).Strategies that promote social relations among elementary students withand without severe disabilities in inclusive schools. Exceptional Chil-dren, 62, 125-137.

Science Research Associates. (1975). Science Research Associates assess-ment survey. Chicago: Author.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions ofmainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacherperceptions of the regular education initiative. Exceptional Children,58, 9-23.



126

Sharpe, M. N., York, J. L., & Knight, J. (1994). Effects of inclusion on theacademic performance of classmates without disabilities. Remedial andSpecial Education, 15, 281-287.

Shinn, M. R., Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., & Baker, S. (1997). Theeffects of reintegration into general education reading instruction forstudents with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 59-79.

Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student,and school attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion.The Journal of Special Education, 31, 480-497.

SRI International. (1993). Transversing the mainstream: Regular educationand students with disabilities in secondary school. Menlo Park, CA:Author.

Staub, D., Schwartz, I. S., Gallucci, C., & Peck, C. A. (1994). Four por-traits of friendship at an inclusive school. Journal of the Associationfor Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 314-325.

Thousand, J., Rosenberg, R. L., Bishop, K. D., & Villa, R. A. (1997). Theevolution of secondary inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 18,270-284, 306.

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Shank, M., & Leal, D. (1999). Exceptional lives:Special education in today’s schools (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merrill.

U. S. Department of Education (1995). Seventeenth annual report to Con-gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education (1996). Eighteenth annual report to Con-gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). The effects of inclu-sion on the social functioning of students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 598-608.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher andadministrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Chil-dren, 63, 29-45.

Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive schoolprogram on students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Excep-tional Children, 64, 395-405.

Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits andproblems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 30, 395-407.

Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Snyder, E. D., Caldwell, N. K., & Salisbury,C. L. (1996). Supports and resources associated with inclusive school-ing: Perceptions of elementary school teachers about need and avail-ability. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 187-203.

York, J., Vandercook, T., Macdonald, C., Heise-Neff, C., & Caughey, E.(1992). Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severedisabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children, 58, 244-258.

York, J., & Tundidor, M. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion:Perspectives of educators, parents, and students. Journal of the Associ-ation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 31-44.

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N.,Jenkins, L., & Coutinho, M. (1995). Special education in restructuredschools. Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,531-540.

Received July 9, 1997Revision Received December 10, 1997

Initial Acceptance February 13, 1998Final Acceptance September 1, 1998



Remedial and Special Education ... · PDF file115 tricts as part of a national study on...

Documents

Transcript of Remedial and Special Education ... · PDF file115 tricts as part of a national study on...