ŠENT
Slovensko združenje za duševno zdravje
Special education needs essay
Zadnje novice:

Special education needs essay

Implementing an inclusive curriculum: A teacher’s perspective

Gregor Cotič

Search strategy:

   This essay aims to review recent studies published in databases accessible through Google Scholar and University of Bristol Library Search. Only peer-reviewed articles were reviewed. Keywords used to search for literature were “inclusion”, “curriculum”, “teacher” followed by “special educational needs”. Search operators »and« and »or« were used to ensure access to the widest possible pool of data. It is possible that important and relevant research was not reviewed due to the large number of hits. Further literature was reviewed through forward citation searching.

Introduction:

   Inclusive education as a concept is being hailed a critical step in democratizing education (Thousand & Villa, 2000), a necessity in a new, open and inclusive society. It seems that inclusive education, regardless of criticism levelled towards it can do no wrong. Academic achievement and social functioning of special educational needs (SEN) students increases when they are part of inclusive settings (e.g. Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). There seems to be no negative effects on students who are classmates of SEN students (Salend & Duhaney, 1999), regardless of level of disability. Is then opposition to full inclusion simply prejudice, comparable to segregation practices or apartheid? The answer lies in deciding what inclusion means and how it is handled within a particular system. This question is of particular importance to me as a teacher, as Slovenia is slowly moving away from a segregated education system to implementing inclusive curricula. I will attempt to review available literature and highlight the most critical issues in the process.

Inclusion in practice

   The sentiment behind inclusive practices can be summed up by the 1994 Salamanca declaration (UNESCO, 1994), which states that mainstream schools are the best setting for providing SEN students with an efficient and cost effective education. It furthermore asserts that there are secondary benefits to including SEN students, such as creating welcoming communities and building an inclusive society. While the moral sentiment behind the declaration is faultless, it contains the assumption that mainstream schools will provide an appropriate education suited to SEN students’ needs. The evident discrepancy between the proposed goal of inclusion and the current state of affairs has shown a number of issues, including vagueness and unhelpfulness of disorder classifications, negative consequences of labelling, assessment difficulties and poor curricula and pedagogy in inclusive classrooms (Hornby, 2011). While the list of potential and observed issues is long, the parameters necessary for the implementation of successful inclusive practices are as hard to define and much harder to achieve. Research indicates that programs that were successful boasted some combination of visionary leadership, refocused use of assessment, support for students and staff, collaboration, effective programs models and classroom practices, funding and effective parental involvement (Thousand & Villa, 2000).
   Focusing on the main points of confusion within the inclusion literature, we can immediately see that some confusion is generated by the lively debate occurring outside the scientific sphere. To give an example, labelling stands out as one of the more controversial issues (Paton, 2014). Proponents of inclusion policies seem to propose avoiding labelling students for fear of stigmatization (Hornby, 2011). This is a concern that has little to do with reality, as it has been shown that students with a specific diagnosis are able to receive targeted interventions and have a better explanation for their academic difficulties, benefiting self-esteem (e.g. Taylor, Hume, & Welsh, 2010). It is, therefore in the interest of educators to label their students as precisely as possible, rather than either ignoring or using a generalizable label of SEN. This raises an issue-when a child is diagnosed as having special educational needs, a support structure must exist to provide the child with an appropriate education. The first step in providing such a structure is a curriculum.

Key issues in implementing an inclusive curriculum:

   An appropriate curriculum for SEN students is, for obvious reasons, hard to design. Providing SEN students with a non-modified curriculum might seem like a positive step, yet it fails to account for the variety of disorders on the SEN spectrum as well as fails to recognise the unequal distribution of resources in a system. This problem is even more pronounced in nations where the legal system differentiates between federal and state law or allows for a significant degree of freedom in local governance (Garner & Forbes, 2015). A national curriculum will therefore need to make provisions for SEN students, especially when the system is geared towards full inclusion (Forbes, 2007). As inclusion is seen as a process (e.g Hornby, 2011), much of the responsibility for assuring that the system accommodates SEN students is borne by individual schools and teachers that are the dynamic, flexible components of the system (Garner & Forbes, 2015). An effective inclusive curriculum, whether monolithic and inflexible or largely in the hands of local authorities needs to be provided by teachers, who in turn need to be trained and prepared for teaching SEN students. This is not always the case, as Garner & Forbes report in their study that there is not often a strategic approach to educating teachers:
(Teacher, Australia): ‘I seem to have to develop and grow my skills or knowledge base in a very piecemeal kind of way. This is unsatisfactory because, though I personally have learned a lot you run the risk of inconsistency. Some teachers will have fewer opportunities to learn ‘on the job’ than others, and much will depend on the quality of those around them’ (Garner & Forbes, 2015).
Research identifies the idea that SEN students will not comprehend the curriculum and that the curriculum must be covered, regardless of comprehension as specific issues in preparing teachers for inclusive practices where an inclusive curriculum is concerned (King-sears, 2008).

Issue 1: Non-comprehension

   The idea that SEN students might not be able to comprehend the curriculum at all (or at least in a reasonable amount of time) is shown as a fallacy by a study that involved adjusting standard teaching methods by providing monitoring of student thinking, literacy training and group work tasks (Palincsar, Magnusson, Collins, & Cutter, 2001).
   I must note that while the end result suggested that SEN students will learn more efficiently with the implementation of such strategies, teachers were unaware of the possibility of implementing them before the commencement of the experiment, suggesting that no additional training was administered before the start of the inclusion program.
   Other recent studies suggest that there is a number of effective strategies for improving the learning rates among SEN students regardless of subject (Foegen, 2008). These strategies have been collectively termed “universal design for learning” (UDL) since they can be applied to a variety of settings and heterogeneous groups (Flores, 2008). Not only must teachers be aware of strategies they could employ in inclusive settings, how they are employed is equally important. An example study of UDL technique application concluded that a teacher must, in an inclusive setting, use both classical direct instruction as well as discovery learning (an inductive form based on inferring rules). This must be coupled with monitoring of student progress and Concrete-Semiconcrete-Abstract instruction, leading into practice tasks for the student (Sealander, Johnson, Lockwood, & Medina, 2012). These strategies are not always valid, as some of them predict that teachers will have access to resources such as teaching assistants, specialist teachers or simply time, which in Slovenia is not always the case. For instance, the aforementioned CSA technique hinges on 9 separate lessons administered in 30 minute blocks to achieve mastery of a single concept. Furthermore, the UDL approach requires educators to provide students with flexible content representation, varied means of assessment and different ways of participation or engagement in the classroom (King-sears, 2008).
   While most SEN students will be able to comprehend a curriculum, some might need additional instruction. The resources of educators are limited, and studies show that SEN students might not improve sufficiently even when all parameters for a successful inclusive curriculum have been achieved (Baxter, Woodward, Voorhies, & Wong, 2002). Additional tutoring programs such as Class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) might be necessary, although this does not in any way mean that teachers can absolve themselves of the responsibility of implementing the curriculum. SEN students might have needs beyond what the educator can provide, especially where primary skills such as literacy and algebra are concerned. An example meta-study of CWPT in inclusive settings shows that separating classes into halves and assigning tutor responsibilities to alternating students under the guidance of a teacher is an extremely effective way of supplementing the basic curriculum (Maheady & Gard, 2010). Another study that includes both pre- and post- assessment of SEN students in mathematics learning showed that with tutoring in general problem solving, SEN students were able to achieve higher growth over the intervention period than their classmates (Woodward, Monroe, & Baxter, 2001).
   Comprehension of a curriculum geared towards ensuring competitive test scores in learners might not be necessary to SEN learners, especially since there is evidence of poor social inclusion amongst SEN students in inclusive settings. A study showed that SEN students are indeed an at-risk population for loneliness, with a particular emphasis on students that suffer from a disorder on the autism spectrum (Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2012). This implies that curricula should be designed to facilitate social inclusion.
   We can conclude that the idea that SEN students will not comprehend the curriculum might be false, provided that teaching strategies, appropriate supplementary staff, funding and environment are available.

Issue 2: Accountability

The fact that teachers are required to cover the curriculum within a certain timeframe, regardless of SEN students ability to follow it alongside their peers is the second major problem that teachers face during the implementation of an inclusive curriculum (King-sears, 2008). This is a symptom of a much wider issue-accountability. Teachers are understandably divided when they support an inclusive curriculum which brings with it an official measure of performance that is standardized across the nation, while at the same time being asked to look after individuals that require specialised and individualised care and attention (Garner & Forbes, 2015). Researchers note that when assessment scores among SEN students are particularly low, there is an immediate focus on the parts of the curriculum that are being assessed. An example qualitative study of testing SEN students in an inclusive curriculum clearly shows that repeated testing and make-up testing is the norm for at-risk students (Meek, 2006).
This is often perceived as a failure of the curriculum, particularly when statistics show that less than a third of SEN students in the US pass high school competency exams (Defur, 2002). According to teachers implementing the curriculum, the curriculum goals for SEN students should be differentiated from simply satisfying test parameters. Goals for SEN students should be specifically tailored and pursued with methods mentioned above (Meek, 2006).
This is generally not the case in countries with an inclusive curriculum (Keslair, Maurin, & McNally, 2012), where standardized assessments motivate teachers to apply the curriculum at a continuous pace, regardless of individual rates of learning amongst students. King notes that this begins a vicious cycle of neglecting background knowledge necessary for understanding among SEN students, leading to poor standardized test scores, which in turn leads to increases in the pace of study by administrators (King-sears, 2008), a situation I observed even in settings where SEN students were not included. Educators should consider that points of entry for students might vary, depending on their previous knowledge and specific disability. Research shows that focusing on individual students, testing for mastery of knowledge and not for test content, testing for competency in particular areas that might be more accessible for SEN students and other changes to the testing system should be beneficial (Meek, 2006). The point of standardized testing, however, is not torture of SEN students, but rather ensuring that students are in fact benefiting from their education.
   Ensuring that students learn everything the curriculum has to offer might not be the most reasonable of priorities, as research points out that some students may master less content, but learn more than they would have if they had been exposed to every part of it (King-sears, 2008). Is it then right to modify inclusive curricula and ignore standardised testing?
   The answer to this conundrum seems to be “adaptive teaching”, a term that combines the notion of the responsibility to satisfy conditions set down in the curriculum with creative freedom given to teachers in how they provide basic skills, including reading, verbal and written presentation, mathematics and foreign language competency (Bjornsrud & Nilsen, 2011). I must note that this solution might not be applicable in nations or areas with high student to teacher ratios or poor funding.

Issue 3: Student differentiation

   Adaptive teaching of a curriculum hinges on the teacher being able to adapt it to a specific student. Without this adaptation, poor results on standardised tests might influence school rankings prompting unethical policies such as exclusion of SEN students from assessment (King-sears, 2008). Adaptation or differentiation of the curriculum is then necessary, but how can it be achieved? A recent study emphasizes the role of initial assessment systems in inclusion of SEN students. The European DAFFODIL ( Dynamic Assessment of Functioning and Oriented at Development and Inclusive Learning) project was examined and questionnaires sent to a variety of educators, psychological professionals and parents in a number of European countries to determine how effective this differentiation of SEN students is and how students are assessed upon their entry into inclusive programs. The results show that only 5% of the professionals responsible for assessing SEN students used process based observation to supplement psychometric tests. Furthermore, teachers and other professionals involved in the implementation of the curriculum reported low satisfaction with the process, it being used mostly to determine the child’s placement options, not effective teaching strategies necessary for adaptive teaching. Parents reported low satisfaction with testing, as they are held partly responsible for the child’s performance, but not given methods to improve it (Lebeer et al., 2012). This clearly implies that any effective inclusive curriculum must be supplemented by a dynamic, process based evaluation of SEN students, not static psychometric tests. Is there then a need for individual programs and evaluations for each student?
   The actual strategies recommended for applying a curriculum in a differentiated way have been widely researched. An example study shows that differentiation need not be on the individual level but can be applied to groups of students with similar disabilities. Krawec suggests that differentiating students into groups of low-achieving, average-achieving and SEN students and then explicitly teaching paraphrasing and visual representation strategies to them might eliminate differences in ability among them (Krawec, 2014). The research furthermore suggests that any such curriculum should be supplemented by real world problem solving. When the entry level of knowledge and ability has been identified, further monitoring is necessary to ensure that students advance at a steady pace and move on to more complex skills (King-sears, 2008).
One of the systems that provide such monitoring is CBM (Curriculum Based Monitoring). CBM (or similar monitoring system) employs short-term and long-term achievable goals on an individual basis to ensure that the curriculum is being followed at an appropriate pace. Studies report that it is useful in any subject (Stecker, 2006).
While any such monitoring system will be time –consuming, it provides the teacher with the option of applying a truly differentiated curriculum. Both students that show low progress as well as those that are not being challenged enough can be taught differently, which I would argue is truly inclusive.

Issue 4: Secondary curriculum goals

   If the primary goal of any inclusive curriculum is to provide a basis for student learning and achievement, its secondary goal must be to facilitate inclusion. Inclusive education should produce happy, well-adjusted and productive citizens (Hornby, 2011). In such a curriculum SEN students and their classmates must form and maintain relationships, interactions, maintain appropriate perception of pupils with SEN and practice acceptance (Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2013). While a certain segment of research paints a positive picture of SEN student social standing and relationship in classrooms (Avramidis, 2013), other research suggests that SEN students experience loneliness, ostracism and other forms or consequences of exclusion more frequently than their classmates (Bossaert et al., 2012). Since poor social skills not only negatively influence the relationships that SEN students might form but also themselves, resulting in anxiety, depression and other disorders (Welsh, Parke, Widaman, & O’Neil, 2001), an intervention seems necessary. A curriculum, inclusive or not, seemingly has little to do with non-academic focuses such as socialization. Despite this, research argues that a modern inclusive curriculum can provide social skills training to SEN students in a classroom setting. A study showed that social skills can be taught without context, in 20 minute segments using group-work, skill assessment protocols and homework assignments. While such a self-contained module is valuable when used in an extracurricular setting, within the curriculum, integration of group work and social skill teaching into an academic lesson plan is perfectly possible (Reisberg & Williams, 2003). More recent studies expanded on this idea by indicating that the Social Skills Improvement System (SSiS)(Crosby, 2011) or a comparable system might be used to achieve long-term goals over a period of more than a year (Davies, Cooper, Kettler, & Elliott, 2015). Implementing social skill training into the curriculum as an essential part of the program brings with it all the issues inherent in implementing an otherwise typical inclusive curriculum. In the same study teachers implementing social skills training reported time problems (the SSiS program required three 30 minute lessons a week), lack of training , lack of time for preparation and high student to teacher ratios. They also indicated that the introduction of social skills training into the curriculum reduced the time available for other subjects. Regardless, most considered SSiS to be an excellent investment of both their and the students’ time, despite poor outcomes where SEN students with complex additional needs and limited communication skills were concerned (Davies et al., 2015).

Issue 5: Teacher training and beliefs

This brings up another important point. Teachers that implement the curriculum must be appropriately trained and comfortable with inclusive practices, since they offer both their knowledge and serve as role models for acceptance of inclusion to SEN students’ classmates (Forlin, Cedillo, Romero-Contreras, Fletcher, & Hernandez, 2010).
   A recent example study found that inexperienced teachers are concerned about working with SEN students and have had little contact with them before being asked to participate in an inclusive setting (Forlin et al., 2010). Although the study applies to a specific nation that is culturally different from western Europe, these sentiments are mirrored in studies closer to home (Hornby, 2011; McCoy & Banks, 2012). Teachers intending to truly provide an inclusive curriculum should first be effective in delivering non-inclusive curricula, as research indicates that training programs might not have yet adapted to the new challenges of inclusion and that teachers who are effective overall might be effective in inclusive settings due to their beliefs (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002). Work by Stanovich identifies the key characteristic of successful teachers as holding “interventionist” beliefs, characterized by the concept of a learner’s performance being a reflection of the interplay between the environment and the student. This belief is reflected in similar studies that identify key characteristics of inclusive teachers as gaining student attention, maintaining high student response rates, telling students what to expect and monitoring lesson transitions (Jordan, Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009). This supports the belief that an effective inclusive curriculum could be facilitated by teachers with effective teaching practices overall.
   A study observing core lessons in inclusive settings showed that teachers that expresses interventionist beliefs also consider themselves more responsible for the performance of SEN students and hold that reducing barriers to access is one of their responsibilities (White, 2007). This implies that no training is necessary as long as teachers are effective and consistently interact well with their students. A study shows that this is not the case, as approximately 55% of the teachers exhibited beliefs with both interventionist and diametrically opposite pathognomonic characteristics (Jordan et al., 2009). This clearly shows that successfully implementing an inclusive curriculum is dependent on providing training and imposing a consistent set of beliefs on teaching. Teacher beliefs are hard to change, especially with teachers that have extensive work experience (Pajares, 1992). While some studies speculate that teacher beliefs should be influenced over time by the professed beliefs of administrators, head teachers or other educators in positions of authority (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002), others conclude that beliefs are essentially fixed and may never truly change (White, 2007). Whatever the case, research indicates that no matter the mechanism used to alter teacher beliefs, such change will not happen uniformly, nor will it occur without practical evidence that student learning has improved (T. Guskey, 2002). Implementing an inclusive curriculum then does not hinge on teacher beliefs, but rather teacher training. Research identifies that the core skills a teacher must possess to be effective in an inclusive setting include engaging in peer coaching activities, writing a reflective journal, keeping a professional development portfolio, online monitoring of instructional activities and an appropriate level of knowledge gained at an university level (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002). A meta-analysis of 13 studies published since the 1994 Salamanca declaration indicates that even short term training (up to 56 hours) aimed at improving teachers skills in dealing with particular disabilities or implementing particular curricula was very helpful (Kurniawati, De Boer, Minnaert, & Mangunsong, 2014).
   A different meta-analysis, on the other hand suggests that teacher training does not improve achievement among SEN students to any significant degree (T. R. Guskey & Yoon, 2009).

Is there then a reason for teachers to try and implement an inclusive curriculum?

Conclusions and implications:

   Yes. Having observed education of SEN students in a segregated system, education in non-restrictive seems like a welcome and logical step forward, both practically and morally. To do so successfully, a number of concerns must first be addressed. A quick review of the literature proves that the field contains several real issues, most of which will in the end be confronted by those applying the policy-the teachers. All the clusters of controversy dealt with above (teacher training and beliefs, secondary curriculum goals, student differentiation, accountability and non-comprehension) have a number of more or less plausible solutions. The fact that education, for any child, is a complex and deeply personal experience combined with close public interest in education guarantees that many of them will be found wanting when and if they are applied. The only way for a teacher to successfully adapt and at the same time apply a truly inclusive curriculum is a personal, individual interest in each individual student combined with a necessary shift in teacher education. The literature repeatedly makes note of the importance of teacher beliefs and attitudes, which seem to have an immense influence on the success of inclusion.       Consequently, as trite as it sounds, an inclusive curriculum can only be implemented by teachers that believe it can be.

References:

Avramidis, E. (2013). Self-Concept, Social Position and Social Participation of Pupils with SEN in Mainstream Primary Schools. Research Papers in Education, (4), 421–442. http://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2012.673006
Baxter, J., Woodward, J., Voorhies, J., & Wong, J. (2002). We Talk About It, But Do They Get It? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(3), 173–185. http://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00043
Bjornsrud, H., & Nilsen, S. (2011). The development of intentions for adapted teaching and inclusive education seen in light of curriculum potential. A content analysis of Norwegian national curricula post 1980. Curriculum Journal, 22(4), 549–566. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.627216
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2012). Loneliness among Students with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Seventh Grade. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 33(6), 1888–1897. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.05.010
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 60–79. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.580464
Crosby, J. W. (2011). Test Review: F. M. Gresham & S. N. Elliott “Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales.” Minneapolis, Minnesota--NCS Pearson, 2008. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(3), 292–296. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910385806
Davies, M., Cooper, G., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2015). Developing Social Skills of Students with Additional Needs within the Context of the Australian Curriculum. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 37–55. http://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2014.9
Defur, S. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state’s approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 203–211.
Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of Inclusion on the Academic Achievement and Adaptive Behaviour of Children with Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579–587. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x
Flores, M. (2008). Universal Design in Elementary and Middle School?: Designing Classrooms and Instructional Practices to Ensure Access to Learning for All Students. Childhood Education, 84(4), 224–229. http://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2008.10523013
Foegen, A. (2008). Algebra Progress Monitoring and Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 65–78. http://doi.org/10.2307/20528818
Forbes, F. (2007). Towards Inclusion: An Australian Perspective. Support for Learning, 22(2), 66–71. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00449.x
Forlin, C., Cedillo, I. G., Romero-Contreras, S., Fletcher, T., & Hernandez, H. J. R. (2010). Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring Supportive Attitudes by Newly Graduated Teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 723–739. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778569
Garner, P., & Forbes, F. (2015). An “at-risk” curriculum for “at-risk” students? Special educational needs and disability in the new A ustralian C urriculum. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 225–234. http://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12022
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. http://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What Works in Professional Development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500.
Hornby, G. (2011). Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational Needs: A critique. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(3), 321–329. http://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.598678
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535–542. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.010
Keslair, F., Maurin, E., & McNally, S. (2012). Every child matters? An evaluation of “Special Educational Needs” programmes in England. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 932–948. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.005
King-sears, M. E. (2008). Facts and fallacies: differentiation and the general education curriculum for students with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 23(2), 55–62. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00371.x
Krawec, J. L. (2014). Problem Representation and Mathematical Problem Solving of Students of Varying Math Ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 103–115. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412436976
Kurniawati, F., De Boer, A. A., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Mangunsong, F. (2014). Characteristics of primary teacher training programmes on inclusion: a literature focus. Educational Research, 56(3), 310–326. http://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.934555
Lebeer, J., Birta-Székely, N., Demeter, K., Bohács, K., Candeias, A. A., Sonnesyn, G., … Dawson, L. (2012). Re-assessing the current assessment practice of children with special education needs in Europe. School Psychology International, 33(1), 69–92. http://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311409975
Maheady, L., & Gard, J. (2010). Classwide Peer Tutoring: Practice, Theory, Research, and Personal Narrative. Intervention In School And Clinic, 46(2), 71–78. http://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210376359
McCoy, S., & Banks, J. (2012). Simply Academic? Why Children with Special Educational Needs Don’t Like School. European Journa 3060Implementing an inclusive curriculum: A teacher’s perspective Search strategy: This essay aims to review recent studies published in databases accessible through Google Scholar and University of Bristol Library Search. Only peer-reviewed articles were reviewed. Keywords used to search for literature were “inclusion”, “curriculum”, “teacher” followed by “special educational needs”. Search operators »and« and »or« were used to ensure access to the widest possible pool of data. It is possible that important and relevant research was not reviewed due to the large number of hits. Further literature was reviewed through forward citation searching. Introduction: Inclusive education as a concept is being hailed a critical step in democratizing education (Thousand & Villa, 2000), a necessity in a new, open and inclusive society. It seems that inclusive education, regardless of criticism levelled towards it can do no wrong. Academic achievement and social functioning of special educational needs (SEN) students increases when they are part of inclusive settings (e.g. Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). There seems to be no negative effects on students who are classmates of SEN students (Salend & Duhaney, 1999), regardless of level of disability. Is then opposition to full inclusion simply prejudice, comparable to segregation practices or apartheid? The answer lies in deciding what inclusion means and how it is handled within a particular system. This question is of particular importance to me as a teacher, as Slovenia is slowly moving away from a segregated education system to implementing inclusive curricula. I will attempt to review available literature and highlight the most critical issues in the process. Inclusion in practice The sentiment behind inclusive practices can be summed up by the 1994 Salamanca declaration (UNESCO, 1994), which states that mainstream schools are the best setting for providing SEN students with an efficient and cost effective education. It furthermore asserts that there are secondary benefits to including SEN students, such as creating welcoming communities and building an inclusive society. While the moral sentiment behind the declaration is faultless, it contains the assumption that mainstream schools will provide an appropriate education suited to SEN students’ needs. The evident discrepancy between the proposed goal of inclusion and the current state of affairs has shown a number of issues, including vagueness and unhelpfulness of disorder classifications, negative consequences of labelling, assessment difficulties and poor curricula and pedagogy in inclusive classrooms (Hornby, 2011). While the list of potential and observed issues is long, the parameters necessary for the implementation of successful inclusive practices are as hard to define and much harder to achieve. Research indicates that programs that were successful boasted some combination of visionary leadership, refocused use of assessment, support for students and staff, collaboration, effective programs models and classroom practices, funding and effective parental involvement (Thousand & Villa, 2000). Focusing on the main points of confusion within the inclusion literature, we can immediately see that some confusion is generated by the lively debate occurring outside the scientific sphere. To give an example, labelling stands out as one of the more controversial issues (Paton, 2014). Proponents of inclusion policies seem to propose avoiding labelling students for fear of stigmatization (Hornby, 2011). This is a concern that has little to do with reality, as it has been shown that students with a specific diagnosis are able to receive targeted interventions and have a better explanation for their academic difficulties, benefiting self-esteem (e.g. Taylor, Hume, & Welsh, 2010). It is, therefore in the interest of educators to label their students as precisely as possible, rather than either ignoring or using a generalizable label of SEN. This raises an issue-when a child is diagnosed as having special educational needs, a support structure must exist to provide the child with an appropriate education. The first step in providing such a structure is a curriculum. Key issues in implementing an inclusive curriculum: An appropriate curriculum for SEN students is, for obvious reasons, hard to design. Providing SEN students with a non-modified curriculum might seem like a positive step, yet it fails to account for the variety of disorders on the SEN spectrum as well as fails to recognise the unequal distribution of resources in a system. This problem is even more pronounced in nations where the legal system differentiates between federal and state law or allows for a significant degree of freedom in local governance (Garner & Forbes, 2015). A national curriculum will therefore need to make provisions for SEN students, especially when the system is geared towards full inclusion (Forbes, 2007). As inclusion is seen as a process (e.g Hornby, 2011), much of the responsibility for assuring that the system accommodates SEN students is borne by individual schools and teachers that are the dynamic, flexible components of the system (Garner & Forbes, 2015). An effective inclusive curriculum, whether monolithic and inflexible or largely in the hands of local authorities needs to be provided by teachers, who in turn need to be trained and prepared for teaching SEN students. This is not always the case, as Garner & Forbes report in their study that there is not often a strategic approach to educating teachers: (Teacher, Australia): ‘I seem to have to develop and grow my skills or knowledge base in a very piecemeal kind of way. This is unsatisfactory because, though I personally have learned a lot you run the risk of inconsistency. Some teachers will have fewer opportunities to learn ‘on the job’ than others, and much will depend on the quality of those around them’ (Garner & Forbes, 2015). Research identifies the idea that SEN students will not comprehend the curriculum and that the curriculum must be covered, regardless of comprehension as specific issues in preparing teachers for inclusive practices where an inclusive curriculum is concerned (King-sears, 2008). Issue 1: Non-comprehension The idea that SEN students might not be able to comprehend the curriculum at all (or at least in a reasonable amount of time) is shown as a fallacy by a study that involved adjusting standard teaching methods by providing monitoring of student thinking, literacy training and group work tasks (Palincsar, Magnusson, Collins, & Cutter, 2001). I must note that while the end result suggested that SEN students will learn more efficiently with the implementation of such strategies, teachers were unaware of the possibility of implementing them before the commencement of the experiment, suggesting that no additional training was administered before the start of the inclusion program. Other recent studies suggest that there is a number of effective strategies for improving the learning rates among SEN students regardless of subject (Foegen, 2008). These strategies have been collectively termed “universal design for learning” (UDL) since they can be applied to a variety of settings and heterogeneous groups (Flores, 2008). Not only must teachers be aware of strategies they could employ in inclusive settings, how they are employed is equally important. An example study of UDL technique application concluded that a teacher must, in an inclusive setting, use both classical direct instruction as well as discovery learning (an inductive form based on inferring rules). This must be coupled with monitoring of student progress and Concrete-Semiconcrete-Abstract instruction, leading into practice tasks for the student (Sealander, Johnson, Lockwood, & Medina, 2012). These strategies are not always valid, as some of them predict that teachers will have access to resources such as teaching assistants, specialist teachers or simply time, which in Slovenia is not always the case. For instance, the aforementioned CSA technique hinges on 9 separate lessons administered in 30 minute blocks to achieve mastery of a single concept. Furthermore, the UDL approach requires educators to provide students with flexible content representation, varied means of assessment and different ways of participation or engagement in the classroom (King-sears, 2008). While most SEN students will be able to comprehend a curriculum, some might need additional instruction. The resources of educators are limited, and studies show that SEN students might not improve sufficiently even when all parameters for a successful inclusive curriculum have been achieved (Baxter, Woodward, Voorhies, & Wong, 2002). Additional tutoring programs such as Class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) might be necessary, although this does not in any way mean that teachers can absolve themselves of the responsibility of implementing the curriculum. SEN students might have needs beyond what the educator can provide, especially where primary skills such as literacy and algebra are concerned. An example meta-study of CWPT in inclusive settings shows that separating classes into halves and assigning tutor responsibilities to alternating students under the guidance of a teacher is an extremely effective way of supplementing the basic curriculum (Maheady & Gard, 2010). Another study that includes both pre- and post- assessment of SEN students in mathematics learning showed that with tutoring in general problem solving, SEN students were able to achieve higher growth over the intervention period than their classmates (Woodward, Monroe, & Baxter, 2001). Comprehension of a curriculum geared towards ensuring competitive test scores in learners might not be necessary to SEN learners, especially since there is evidence of poor social inclusion amongst SEN students in inclusive settings. A study showed that SEN students are indeed an at-risk population for loneliness, with a particular emphasis on students that suffer from a disorder on the autism spectrum (Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2012). This implies that curricula should be designed to facilitate social inclusion. We can conclude that the idea that SEN students will not comprehend the curriculum might be false, provided that teaching strategies, appropriate supplementary staff, funding and environment are available. Issue 2: Accountability The fact that teachers are required to cover the curriculum within a certain timeframe, regardless of SEN students ability to follow it alongside their peers is the second major problem that teachers face during the implementation of an inclusive curriculum (King-sears, 2008). This is a symptom of a much wider issue-accountability. Teachers are understandably divided when they support an inclusive curriculum which brings with it an official measure of performance that is standardized across the nation, while at the same time being asked to look after individuals that require specialised and individualised care and attention (Garner & Forbes, 2015). Researchers note that when assessment scores among SEN students are particularly low, there is an immediate focus on the parts of the curriculum that are being assessed. An example qualitative study of testing SEN students in an inclusive curriculum clearly shows that repeated testing and make-up testing is the norm for at-risk students (Meek, 2006). This is often perceived as a failure of the curriculum, particularly when statistics show that less than a third of SEN students in the US pass high school competency exams (Defur, 2002). According to teachers implementing the curriculum, the curriculum goals for SEN students should be differentiated from simply satisfying test parameters. Goals for SEN students should be specifically tailored and pursued with methods mentioned above (Meek, 2006). This is generally not the case in countries with an inclusive curriculum (Keslair, Maurin, & McNally, 2012), where standardized assessments motivate teachers to apply the curriculum at a continuous pace, regardless of individual rates of learning amongst students. King notes that this begins a vicious cycle of neglecting background knowledge necessary for understanding among SEN students, leading to poor standardized test scores, which in turn leads to increases in the pace of study by administrators (King-sears, 2008), a situation I observed even in settings where SEN students were not included. Educators should consider that points of entry for students might vary, depending on their previous knowledge and specific disability. Research shows that focusing on individual students, testing for mastery of knowledge and not for test content, testing for competency in particular areas that might be more accessible for SEN students and other changes to the testing system should be beneficial (Meek, 2006). The point of standardized testing, however, is not torture of SEN students, but rather ensuring that students are in fact benefiting from their education. Ensuring that students learn everything the curriculum has to offer might not be the most reasonable of priorities, as research points out that some students may master less content, but learn more than they would have if they had been exposed to every part of it (King-sears, 2008). Is it then right to modify inclusive curricula and ignore standardised testing? The answer to this conundrum seems to be “adaptive teaching”, a term that combines the notion of the responsibility to satisfy conditions set down in the curriculum with creative freedom given to teachers in how they provide basic skills, including reading, verbal and written presentation, mathematics and foreign language competency (Bjornsrud & Nilsen, 2011). I must note that this solution might not be applicable in nations or areas with high student to teacher ratios or poor funding. Issue 3: Student differentiation Adaptive teaching of a curriculum hinges on the teacher being able to adapt it to a specific student. Without this adaptation, poor results on standardised tests might influence school rankings prompting unethical policies such as exclusion of SEN students from assessment (King-sears, 2008). Adaptation or differentiation of the curriculum is then necessary, but how can it be achieved? A recent study emphasizes the role of initial assessment systems in inclusion of SEN students. The European DAFFODIL ( Dynamic Assessment of Functioning and Oriented at Development and Inclusive Learning) project was examined and questionnaires sent to a variety of educators, psychological professionals and parents in a number of European countries to determine how effective this differentiation of SEN students is and how students are assessed upon their entry into inclusive programs. The results show that only 5% of the professionals responsible for assessing SEN students used process based observation to supplement psychometric tests. Furthermore, teachers and other professionals involved in the implementation of the curriculum reported low satisfaction with the process, it being used mostly to determine the child’s placement options, not effective teaching strategies necessary for adaptive teaching. Parents reported low satisfaction with testing, as they are held partly responsible for the child’s performance, but not given methods to improve it (Lebeer et al., 2012). This clearly implies that any effective inclusive curriculum must be supplemented by a dynamic, process based evaluation of SEN students, not static psychometric tests. Is there then a need for individual programs and evaluations for each student? The actual strategies recommended for applying a curriculum in a differentiated way have been widely researched. An example study shows that differentiation need not be on the individual level but can be applied to groups of students with similar disabilities. Krawec suggests that differentiating students into groups of low-achieving, average-achieving and SEN students and then explicitly teaching paraphrasing and visual representation strategies to them might eliminate differences in ability among them (Krawec, 2014). The research furthermore suggests that any such curriculum should be supplemented by real world problem solving. When the entry level of knowledge and ability has been identified, further monitoring is necessary to ensure that students advance at a steady pace and move on to more complex skills (King-sears, 2008). One of the systems that provide such monitoring is CBM (Curriculum Based Monitoring). CBM (or similar monitoring system) employs short-term and long-term achievable goals on an individual basis to ensure that the curriculum is being followed at an appropriate pace. Studies report that it is useful in any subject (Stecker, 2006). While any such monitoring system will be time –consuming, it provides the teacher with the option of applying a truly differentiated curriculum. Both students that show low progress as well as those that are not being challenged enough can be taught differently, which I would argue is truly inclusive. Issue 4: Secondary curriculum goals If the primary goal of any inclusive curriculum is to provide a basis for student learning and achievement, its secondary goal must be to facilitate inclusion. Inclusive education should produce happy, well-adjusted and productive citizens (Hornby, 2011). In such a curriculum SEN students and their classmates must form and maintain relationships, interactions, maintain appropriate perception of pupils with SEN and practice acceptance (Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2013). While a certain segment of research paints a positive picture of SEN student social standing and relationship in classrooms (Avramidis, 2013), other research suggests that SEN students experience loneliness, ostracism and other forms or consequences of exclusion more frequently than their classmates (Bossaert et al., 2012). Since poor social skills not only negatively influence the relationships that SEN students might form but also themselves, resulting in anxiety, depression and other disorders (Welsh, Parke, Widaman, & O’Neil, 2001), an intervention seems necessary. A curriculum, inclusive or not, seemingly has little to do with non-academic focuses such as socialization. Despite this, research argues that a modern inclusive curriculum can provide social skills training to SEN students in a classroom setting. A study showed that social skills can be taught without context, in 20 minute segments using group-work, skill assessment protocols and homework assignments. While such a self-contained module is valuable when used in an extracurricular setting, within the curriculum, integration of group work and social skill teaching into an academic lesson plan is perfectly possible (Reisberg & Williams, 2003). More recent studies expanded on this idea by indicating that the Social Skills Improvement System (SSiS)(Crosby, 2011) or a comparable system might be used to achieve long-term goals over a period of more than a year (Davies, Cooper, Kettler, & Elliott, 2015). Implementing social skill training into the curriculum as an essential part of the program brings with it all the issues inherent in implementing an otherwise typical inclusive curriculum. In the same study teachers implementing social skills training reported time problems (the SSiS program required three 30 minute lessons a week), lack of training , lack of time for preparation and high student to teacher ratios. They also indicated that the introduction of social skills training into the curriculum reduced the time available for other subjects. Regardless, most considered SSiS to be an excellent investment of both their and the students’ time, despite poor outcomes where SEN students with complex additional needs and limited communication skills were concerned (Davies et al., 2015). Issue 5: Teacher training and beliefs This brings up another important point. Teachers that implement the curriculum must be appropriately trained and comfortable with inclusive practices, since they offer both their knowledge and serve as role models for acceptance of inclusion to SEN students’ classmates (Forlin, Cedillo, Romero-Contreras, Fletcher, & Hernandez, 2010). A recent example study found that inexperienced teachers are concerned about working with SEN students and have had little contact with them before being asked to participate in an inclusive setting (Forlin et al., 2010). Although the study applies to a specific nation that is culturally different from western Europe, these sentiments are mirrored in studies closer to home (Hornby, 2011; McCoy & Banks, 2012). Teachers intending to truly provide an inclusive curriculum should first be effective in delivering non-inclusive curricula, as research indicates that training programs might not have yet adapted to the new challenges of inclusion and that teachers who are effective overall might be effective in inclusive settings due to their beliefs (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002). Work by Stanovich identifies the key characteristic of successful teachers as holding “interventionist” beliefs, characterized by the concept of a learner’s performance being a reflection of the interplay between the environment and the student. This belief is reflected in similar studies that identify key characteristics of inclusive teachers as gaining student attention, maintaining high student response rates, telling students what to expect and monitoring lesson transitions (Jordan, Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009). This supports the belief that an effective inclusive curriculum could be facilitated by teachers with effective teaching practices overall. A study observing core lessons in inclusive settings showed that teachers that expresses interventionist beliefs also consider themselves more responsible for the performance of SEN students and hold that reducing barriers to access is one of their responsibilities (White, 2007). This implies that no training is necessary as long as teachers are effective and consistently interact well with their students. A study shows that this is not the case, as approximately 55% of the teachers exhibited beliefs with both interventionist and diametrically opposite pathognomonic characteristics (Jordan et al., 2009). This clearly shows that successfully implementing an inclusive curriculum is dependent on providing training and imposing a consistent set of beliefs on teaching. Teacher beliefs are hard to change, especially with teachers that have extensive work experience (Pajares, 1992). While some studies speculate that teacher beliefs should be influenced over time by the professed beliefs of administrators, head teachers or other educators in positions of authority (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002), others conclude that beliefs are essentially fixed and may never truly change (White, 2007). Whatever the case, research indicates that no matter the mechanism used to alter teacher beliefs, such change will not happen uniformly, nor will it occur without practical evidence that student learning has improved (T. Guskey, 2002). Implementing an inclusive curriculum then does not hinge on teacher beliefs, but rather teacher training. Research identifies that the core skills a teacher must possess to be effective in an inclusive setting include engaging in peer coaching activities, writing a reflective journal, keeping a professional development portfolio, online monitoring of instructional activities and an appropriate level of knowledge gained at an university level (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002). A meta-analysis of 13 studies published since the 1994 Salamanca declaration indicates that even short term training (up to 56 hours) aimed at improving teachers skills in dealing with particular disabilities or implementing particular curricula was very helpful (Kurniawati, De Boer, Minnaert, & Mangunsong, 2014). A different meta-analysis, on the other hand suggests that teacher training does not improve achievement among SEN students to any significant degree (T. R. Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Is there then a reason for teachers to try and implement an inclusive curriculum? Conclusions and implications: Yes. Having observed education of SEN students in a segregated system, education in non-restrictive seems like a welcome and logical step forward, both practically and morally. To do so successfully, a number of concerns must first be addressed. A quick review of the literature proves that the field contains several real issues, most of which will in the end be confronted by those applying the policy-the teachers. All the clusters of controversy dealt with above (teacher training and beliefs, secondary curriculum goals, student differentiation, accountability and non-comprehension) have a number of more or less plausible solutions. The fact that education, for any child, is a complex and deeply personal experience combined with close public interest in education guarantees that many of them will be found wanting when and if they are applied. The only way for a teacher to successfully adapt and at the same time apply a truly inclusive curriculum is a personal, individual interest in each individual student combined with a necessary shift in teacher education. The literature repeatedly makes note of the importance of teacher beliefs and attitudes, which seem to have an immense influence on the success of inclusion. Consequently, as trite as it sounds, an inclusive curriculum can only be implemented by teachers that believe it can be. References: Avramidis, E. (2013). Self-Concept, Social Position and Social Participation of Pupils with SEN in Mainstream Primary Schools. Research Papers in Education, (4), 421–442. http://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2012.673006 Baxter, J., Woodward, J., Voorhies, J., & Wong, J. (2002). We Talk About It, But Do They Get It? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(3), 173–185. http://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00043 Bjornsrud, H., & Nilsen, S. (2011). The development of intentions for adapted teaching and inclusive education seen in light of curriculum potential. A content analysis of Norwegian national curricula post 1980. Curriculum Journal, 22(4), 549–566. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.627216 Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2012). Loneliness among Students with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Seventh Grade. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 33(6), 1888–1897. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.05.010 Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 60–79. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.580464 Crosby, J. W. (2011). Test Review: F. M. Gresham & S. N. Elliott “Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales.” Minneapolis, Minnesota--NCS Pearson, 2008. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(3), 292–296. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910385806 Davies, M., Cooper, G., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2015). Developing Social Skills of Students with Additional Needs within the Context of the Australian Curriculum. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 37–55. http://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2014.9 Defur, S. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state’s approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 203–211. Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of Inclusion on the Academic Achievement and Adaptive Behaviour of Children with Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579–587. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x Flores, M. (2008). Universal Design in Elementary and Middle School?: Designing Classrooms and Instructional Practices to Ensure Access to Learning for All Students. Childhood Education, 84(4), 224–229. http://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2008.10523013 Foegen, A. (2008). Algebra Progress Monitoring and Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 65–78. http://doi.org/10.2307/20528818 Forbes, F. (2007). Towards Inclusion: An Australian Perspective. Support for Learning, 22(2), 66–71. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00449.x Forlin, C., Cedillo, I. G., Romero-Contreras, S., Fletcher, T., & Hernandez, H. J. R. (2010). Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring Supportive Attitudes by Newly Graduated Teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 723–739. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778569 Garner, P., & Forbes, F. (2015). An “at-risk” curriculum for “at-risk” students? Special educational needs and disability in the new A ustralian C urriculum. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 225–234. http://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12022 Guskey, T. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. http://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512 Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What Works in Professional Development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500. Hornby, G. (2011). Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational Needs: A critique. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(3), 321–329. http://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.598678 Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535–542. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.010 Keslair, F., Maurin, E., & McNally, S. (2012). Every child matters? An evaluation of “Special Educational Needs” programmes in England. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 932–948. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.005 King-sears, M. E. (2008). Facts and fallacies: differentiation and the general education curriculum for students with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 23(2), 55–62. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00371.x Krawec, J. L. (2014). Problem Representation and Mathematical Problem Solving of Students of Varying Math Ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 103–115. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412436976 Kurniawati, F., De Boer, A. A., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Mangunsong, F. (2014). Characteristics of primary teacher training programmes on inclusion: a literature focus. Educational Research, 56(3), 310–326. http://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.934555 Lebeer, J., Birta-Székely, N., Demeter, K., Bohács, K., Candeias, A. A., Sonnesyn, G., … Dawson, L. (2012). Re-assessing the current assessment practice of children with special education needs in Europe. School Psychology International, 33(1), 69–92. http://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311409975 Maheady, L., & Gard, J. (2010). Classwide Peer Tutoring: Practice, Theory, Research, and Personal Narrative. Intervention In School And Clinic, 46(2), 71–78. http://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210376359 McCoy, S., & Banks, J. (2012). Simply Academic? Why Children with Special Educational Needs Don’t Like School. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 81–97. http://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.640487 Meek, C. (2006). From the Inside out: A Look at Testing Special Education Students. The Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 293–297. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making Science Accessible to All: Results of a Design Experiment in Inclusive Classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 15–32. Paton, G. (2014). More infants being labelled with special educational needs. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11075151/More-infants-being-labelled-with-special-educational-needs.html Reisberg, L., & Williams, G. J. (2003). Successful Inclusion: Teaching Social Skills Through Curriculum Integration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(4), 205–210. Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G. (1999). The Impact of Inclusion on Students with and without Disabilities and Their Educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114–126. Sealander, K. A., Johnson, G. R.,


Deli!


Izdelki
Ročno izdelane voščilnice
Ročno poslikane keramične ploščice
Izdelki iz gline



OPOZORILO!
S piškotki si pomagamo pri zagotavljanju storitev. Z uporabo naših storitev se strinjate, da lahko uporabljamo piškotke.

V redu | Več o tem