| INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: REVIEWING THE CRITICISM TO FIND DIRECTION
Faculty of Education
Introduction School systems have long grown comfortable with concepts and terms such as "least restrictive environment", "individualized planning", "mainstreaming", and "integration", following years of intense lobbying to place special education on the agenda of educational leaders. These terms reflect not only a changing educational system but an evolving society that is more accepting of disabilities. The last part of the 20th century has clearly witnessed rapid changes in society's treatment of citizens with disabilities, especially in areas of human rights provisions, residential programs and educational services (Heward, 2000; Weber, 1995). While discrimination continues to exist (Neufeldt & Mathieson, 1995; Rioux, 1984), few can argue that services have improved significantly. This is clearly reflected in the educational system where special education is not only firmly entrenched in law but is also core to the array of programs offered by many schools (Weber, 1994). Central to contemporary special education is the concept of inclusive education, a philosophy of student placement and program delivery that has tended to dominate discussions in recent years. In Newfoundland the issue of inclusion moved to the forefront of special education with the release of Pathways to Programming and Graduation (1998). In addition, the draft Special Education Policy Manual (1999) strongly promotes a collaborative decision-making process that helps ensure a "willingness of all personnel to be responsible for all students [and] the full acceptance of diversity within the student population" (p.3.1). The 1990's witnessed a growth of criticism of special education, fuelled in part by the educational reform movement, which brought close scrutiny of programs (Kaufman, 2000). While the motivating force may well have been cost-effectiveness, it has resulted in a plethora of literature on both the virtues and vices of the special education system. The result of this examination is a wealth of information that can provide direction to special education leaders, especially as they manoeuver through the remnants of reform and the often-controversial issue of inclusion (Kauffman, 1999). What themes emerge from this literature? Can a review of our past practice improve future delivery? Will revisiting the roots of inclusion offer clearer direction to program planners and special education leaders? This paper will attempt to answer these questions by reviewing the literature on inclusive education, paying particular attention to the criticisms that may offer hope for improvements. The intention is to identify the lessons, if any, which have been learned from this model of delivery and how this knowledge can improve practice, with specific focus on the Newfoundland model. Definitions The placement of students with disabilities in a continuum of educational settings, ranging from the regular classroom without supports to a specialized facility, is a practice long-established and anchored in legislation such as the American Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997) and the Canadian provincial Schools Acts (Heward, 2000; Rothstein, 2000; Weber, 1994). The Newfoundland School's Act assigns responsibility for special education to the establishment of a policy manual. The current draft version of this manual (1999) does not prioritize inclusion over other placement options. It does state that regular and special education are inextricably linked services that "represent a full continuum of services to meet a full continuum of needs expressed by the total student population…As part of the education continuum, special education is based on the same educational principles and practices as regular education" (p.1.5). Subsequently, a continuum of placements based upon the best, and evolving, interest of the student is outlined as both policy and practice. While the practice of inclusion is an approach to meeting the needs of students with disabilities, it is a concept far more complex than either placement options, social supports or delivery models might imply. Bloom, Perlmutter, & Burrell (1999) attempt to define it as " a philosophy that brings students, families, educators, and community members together to create schools and other social institutions based on acceptance, belonging, and community" (cited in Salend, 2001, p.5). While this definition is broad and philosophical in nature it does reflect the belief system that all students, regardless of need, belong in an environment of acceptance and tolerance. It references a belief structure more than a placement option, introducing the difference between an inclusive attitude/philosophy and an inclusive setting. More specifically, inclusive education has been defined as "the belief or philosophy that students with disabilities should be integrated into regular education classrooms, regardless of whether they can meet traditional curricular standards (O'Brien, Snow, Forest, & Hasbury, 1989, cited in Friend, Bursuck, & Hutchinson 1989. p.6). It is this rigid belief in one placement for all children regardless of severity of needs that defines inclusive practices. Salend (2001) elaborates on this notion of complete acceptance of all students in the regular classroom and the resulting need to alter the educational system to meet that goal. He outlines a series of underlying principles of inclusion, which include diversity, individual needs, reflective practice and collaboration. However, inclusive education has become more complex than any of those terms imply. Crockett & Kauffman (1998), in reviewing the roots of the inclusion movement, examine both the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. They state that the broadness of the term is perhaps its biggest weakness, as it results in such diverse implementation practices that critiquing it is impossible: The notion of inclusion poses a challenge for those wishing to study it more systematically because practices described as inclusive differ markedly from setting to setting. Some models propose the inclusion of literally all students with disabilities and define this as full inclusion. Others define full inclusion as regular class placement for all students with disabilities, but on a part time basis for some; still others propose the inclusions of students for whom it is appropriate or even suggest that separate, special schools are part of their inclusion plan (p. 74). Nonetheless, looking to the origin of this movement and its evolution in program planning for special needs students not only assists with understanding the concept but also provides clarity in examining its effectiveness. Revisiting the Roots of Inclusive Education Inclusive education is a notion born in the evolution of society's changing views of the disabled. As educational systems began to accept students with disabilities, best placement concepts were debated (Friend, Bursuck, & Hutchinson 1989). From the residential schools for the visually impaired of the 1880's to our current regular classroom initiatives, special education has a history that is as colourful as that of residential care for disabled citizens. Smith, Polloway, Patton & Dowdy (1998) outline that educational services for disabled students evolved in three distinct phases, from relative isolation, to integration, and finally to our current phase of inclusion. Interestingly, these phases mirror society's evolution of treatment for all citizens with disabilities. Society became increasingly concerned with human rights following World War II and during the 1950's and 1960's educational placement based upon minority and/or disability status was hotly debated (Smith, Polloway, Patton & Dowdy, 1998). While the desegregation of American schools solidified human rights for African-American children, for example, it also helped ensure educational programming for disabled students (Friend, Bursuck, & Hutchinson 1989). A landmark American court case of 1954 (Brown vs. Board of Education, cited in Friend, Bursuck, & Hutchinson 1989), "contributed to the development, in Canada and the United States, of the perspective that fighting for the rights of the minority with disabilities parallels fighting for the rights of racial minorities" (p.9). These early events helped establish that human rights legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution (1982) would help protect against discrimination based upon mental or physical disability. Wolfensberger's (1972) theory of normalization added momentum to the improvement of educational services for students with disabilities and is often viewed as the catalyst of the move from segregated settings to inclusion (Salend, 2001). Kirk & Gallagher (1989) state: "Special classes, which segregate students with disabilities from their non-disabled peers, cannot be considered a normal school placement" (p.20). Prior to this period, most special education students were contained in separate programs and classrooms and had limited contact with age peers or regular school initiatives (Weber, 1994). The 1970's resulted in two other major events that solidified educational programming for children with exceptionalities. The first was the release of the One Million Children report; the second was the passing of specific American legislation. The Commission of Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children (CELDIC), formed by the Canadian government in 1966 to address the growing concern of parents and teachers about the quality of educational programming for children, tabled their final report titled One Million Children. The report called for increased integration and improved programming based upon individual needs and not diagnosis (Smith, Polloway, Patton, Dowdy & Heath, 2001). Three main educational concepts grew out of this report that would go on to contribute to the formation of inclusion:
While the CELDIC report would have dramatic influence on future models of education, it was the United States that first solidified the educational rights of disabled students in legislation. While both Canada and the United States give full responsibility to the regions (provinces and states) for passing and implementing educational legislation, federal funding laws in the United States were passed in 1975 to help ensure the education of all students. Public Law 94, "The Education for All Children Act", would call for a free and appropriate education for all children in the least restrictive, non-discriminatory environment by using a cascade of delivery models with written individual plans to meet their needs (Salent, 2001). Following its inception in 1975, the law would be revised four times before reaching its current version known as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 1997). Canadian provinces would eventually follow suit with provincial legislation that ensured similar programs and delivery models (Weber, 1994). Accompanying this, and strengthening the cry for stronger inclusion, was the demand of parents for their perception of the rights of their exceptional children. Parents have been developing a growing sense of their legal and social right to be involved in this process for some time (Rothstein, 2000). Weber (1994) identifies this growing trend of parental awareness of their legal rights. He states that, Political activism by parents and other advocacy groups on behalf of students with special needs, had - and continues to have - a powerful effect on the provincial governments...At the same time, it became an accepted, indeed encouraged, practice among professional educators, especially by the nineteen nineties, to involve parents far more extensively in day by day educational decision-making (p.10). Legislative Provisions for Inclusion Models of special education in 2001 are more clearly anchored in human rights and educational legislation and are also more firmly supported by philosophies of integration. Interesting, however, is the fact that the concept of inclusion, though widespread in practice, is not reflected in legislation. As Crockett & Kauffman (1998) state, In law, the argument for least restrictive environment has never been an immutable rule of placement, but a rebuttable presumption favoring inclusion of children in regular classes and allowing segregation in certain instances…courts have given an equivocating answer to whether placement of a child with a disability in a regular classroom is, indeed, the least restrictive environment. The ambiguous answer, in each case, is this: It depends (p.75). One Canadian case involving the issue of inclusion has done much to define the legal provision and interpretation of its practice. The case of Eaton vs. Brant County Board of Education (1997) was initially heard by the Ontario Trial courts but eventually was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Emily Eaton was a severely disabled student who had been in the neighbourhood school with supports under a program for full inclusion. After three years of struggling to meet her needs in a regular class, the school board felt that Emily would be better served in a special segregated class. The parents appealed to the special education appeal board, which upheld the decision to place her in a separate program. They then appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court, which dismissed the application. A subsequent appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was heard and the decision to place her in a separate class was overturned on the basis of discrimination under the Charter. The school board then appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case and dismissed the decision of the Ontario court, re-instating the school board's original decision to place her in a separate class. In rendering their verdict, the Supreme Court commented on adjudicating the issue of best placement: The Tribunal set out to decide which placement was superior, balanced the child's various educational interests taking into account her special needs, and concluded that the best possible placement was in the special class. It also alluded to the requirement of ongoing assessment of the child's best interests so that any changes in her needs could be reflected in the placement. A decision reached after such an approach could not be considered a burden or a disadvantage imposed on a child. For a child who is young or unable to communicate his or her needs or wishes, equality rights are being exercised on that child's behalf, usually by his or her parents. Moreover, the requirements for respecting these rights in this setting are decided by adults who have authority over this child. The decision-making body, therefore, must further ensure that its determination of the appropriate accommodation for an exceptional child be from a subjective, child-centred perspective -- one which attempts to make equality meaningful from the child's point of view as opposed to that of the adults in his or her life. As a means of achieving this aim, it must also determine that the form of accommodation chosen is in the child's best interests. A decision-making body must determine whether the integrated setting can be adapted to meet the special needs of an exceptional child. Where this is not possible, that is where aspects of the integrated setting which cannot reasonably be changed interfere with meeting the child's special needs, the principle of accommodation will require a special education placement outside of this setting (at p. 244-245). Emily's case was widely received among special educators. It was a powerful comment not merely on the issue of who has final say over educational placement but on the burden of responsibility placed on schools to demonstrate that all alternatives to segregated placement have been exhausted and there has been an attempt to balance the decision-makers wishes with the "best interests" of the child (Bowlby & Wooton-Reagan, 1998). Criticisms of Inclusion Criticisms of inclusion, as well as of special education in general, must be framed within the overall context of the educational reform movements of the 1990's (Salend, 2001). School systems were challenged to become more accountable in both financial expenditure and academic outcomes, demands from which special education was not exempt. The resulting streamlining of services and fiscal restraints, as well as the increased focus on higher standards, impacted special education dramatically. Hockenbury, Kauffman & Hallahan (2000), organize recent criticisms of special education into seven emergent themes:
The concept of inclusion, however, was criticized long before educational reform or special education became topical and was, in fact, divisive from the start. Initially called the Regular Education Initiative (REI), inclusion was first presented and supported by groups such as The Association for Severely Handicapped (TASH) and the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC). At the same time, groups such as the International Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) advocated a continuum of placement options, based upon individual needs and in the best interest of the child (Smith, Polloway, Patton & Dowdy, 1998). While inclusion continues to receive wide support, the rigid philosophical belief that one setting fits all children has proven its strongest liability. Zigmond & Baker (1995), in examining this extreme thinking and resulting practice concluded that "special education in inclusive programs is, by design, no longer special" (p.245). Kaufman & Trent (1991) suggest that inclusion was fraught with confusion over how to support these students in regular classes and which curriculum to use. Scrubbs & Mastropieri (1996) add that school administrators were ill prepared and untrained in inclusive models, a concern underscored by the shift to site-based management where administrators assume the role of business managers. They state: "Administrators' skills, knowledge, and understanding are challenged as they attempt to accommodate increasing numbers of students with disabilities into general education classrooms. They must cope with their own and their faculty's lack of preparation for educating students with special needs" (cited in Crockett & Kaufman, 1998. p.76). Salend (2001) found that many schools were being forced to blend regular and special education into one streamlined service. Cook, Gerber & Semmell (1997) found that the call for streamlining and reforming the general educational system had overpowered the individualized nature of special education, to the detriment of the students. Likewise, Crockett & Kauffman (1998) reported that cuts to educational funding resulted in teachers fearing a loss of effectiveness for disabled students. In an editorial published in the Journal of Special Education (1996) the editors compared recent funding cuts resulting from educational reform to the funding cuts in social welfare programs. The authors questioned the growing use of inclusion as a cheaper way to accommodate special education students with little concern for their learning. In a scathing criticism of inclusion the editor wrote: " Full inclusion ignores what we do know about instructing students with disabilities: that effective instruction is systematic, explicit, intensive, and individualized and requires continuous progress monitoring" (p.231). Meanwhile, educational reform and the resulting funding restrictions were adding renewed energy to the need for educators to be accountable for their programs and streamlined in their models. Inclusion has also given rise to growing concerns from teachers over the effectiveness of the approach as well as their preparation to implement it. While research reported that teachers willingly tried inclusion, meeting with various degrees of success, (Salend, 1999; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991; O'Shea & O'Shea , 1998) they were voicing reservations about the practice and felt that greater resources were needed in order for it to succeed (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Among those resources were additional training, sufficient preparation time and appropriate curriculum materials. In a similar study of teacher support personnel, such as student assistants who are often assigned to assist with the placement of students in regular classes, Marks, Schrader & Levine (1991) found that these "para-educators" held too much responsibility and were too ill trained to be effective. Teacher concern for inclusive practices was greatest when students with severe disabilities and behavioural/emotional problems were involved (Taylor, Richards, Goldestein & Schilit, 1997). Researchers identify this population of students as being the most difficult to place in regular classrooms. Teachers, administrators and the parents of other students have grave concerns for safety, the maintenance of the learning environment, and their ability to handle the issues that surface (Kauffman, Lloyd, Baker, & Riedel, 1995; Martin, Lloyd, Kauffman & Coyne, 1995; Schwean, Saklofske, Shatz & Falk, 1996). However, like most issues concerning inclusion, there is not universality of opinion. Gibb, Allred, Ingram, Young & Egan (1999) found that there was support for inclusion of students with emotional/behavioural disorders. The authors did find considerable concern, even among these ardent supporters, for teacher training and collaboration, levels of support, and technical help in planning and adapting curriculum. Concern was also identified for the social implications of inclusion. Researchers were finding that the approach was not resulting in the increased acceptance among peers or heightened self-concept of students with exceptionalities that proponents had originally anticipated (Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997; Sale & Carey, 1995). Directions Needed While much has been written on the benefits and pitfalls of inclusion, there has recently been an emergence of literature calling for a new direction in special education. Educational reform served to instil a sense of accountability in educators, a move that did not bypass special education. In the midst of this criticism, Sabornie (2000) calls for a renewal of professional identity with stronger leadership. He voices concerns that while many of the criticisms of special education are well founded, they should serve as a challenge for renewal and not a death toll. Hockenbury, Kauffman & Hallahan (2000) support this challenge and express the hope that, "the negativity of the critics of special education will be replaced by a more accurate appraisal of special education's past and a more optimistic outlook on its future" (p.10). To this end they outline three lessons to be learned from these criticisms that can assist in redeveloping special education. They suggest, "(a) constructing a defensible philosophy of special education, (b) providing effective and intensive instruction, and (c) improving the quality of teacher training" (p.4). Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) add to this list by calling for more research into special education and a bridging of "the divide between research and practice" (p.526). Crockett & Kauffman (1998) support these recommendations and, stemming from the call of teachers for additional training, suggest a revisiting of teacher training practices for both special and regular education programs. While inclusion is a philosophical goal to which many educators aspire, including the Council for Exceptional Children, it is only one option along a continuum of alternatives. The CEC recognizes this by outlining in their 1993 policy statement: "Access to programs and experiences should be based on individual educational need and desired outcomes. Furthermore, students and their families or guardians, as members of the planning team, may recommend the placement, curriculum option, and the exit document to be pursued" (cited in Smith, Polloway, Patton & Dowdy, 1998. p.26). Zigmond & Baker (1995) add support for this continuum of placement based upon the individual needs of the child. They state: Place is not the critical element in defining special education; theoretically, relentless, intensive, alternative educational opportunities could be made available in any venue of a school...Putting place in its place - as only one element to be considered within the broader context of what needs to be taught, at what level of intensity, with what materials and strategies, at what pace, and in what place - leads one to challenge the meaningfulness of the mainstream curriculum for all students and to define the goals of special education as individual achievement (p.246-247). Zigmond & Baker recommend what they refer to as "inclusion plus", a process of supporting students through strong programming in a setting that blends inclusive and pullout models. They outline four key features of this process as, "Adding resources to strengthen continuum of services, joining general educators to recreate schools, focusing on individual needs, and preserving the unique preparation for special education educators" (p. 248-249). This notion of partial inclusion, or full inclusion with support, has gained significant attention in recent years. Macmillan, Gresham, & Forness (1995) in examining the effectiveness of full inclusion for emotional/behavioural disorders state: "Special education historically has been dedicated to individual differences and has recognized that not only do children differ but so do teachers, schools, parents, and peers. We defy proponents of inclusion to identify a single educational treatment that benefits all children" (p.150). Newfoundland Concerns As stated earlier, the Newfoundland model of special education strongly promotes a continuum of placement options for students with special needs. While this population of students is the responsibility of all educators and the goal is to support them on the regular curriculum through the Pathways model, inclusion is an ideal that both parents and teachers aspire to. Given the long-term career implications for students who are taken off the regular curriculum, few will disagree with this goal. To this end, the Newfoundland system offers categorical and non-categorical teachers, as well as student assistants, to assist students achieve to their fullest potential. In fact, the Newfoundland government reports that they allocate more resources, per capita, to special education students than any of the other Atlantic provinces (Smith, B. Personal interview, March 28, 2001). A student with special needs can have several teachers and an assistant working with them during their school day. In addition, The Model for Co-ordination of Services to Children and Youth (1996) stipulates that this service be outlined in a written plan that is developed by an interagency team, including the parent, child and all service providers from the school and community. While inclusion is a philosophical goal in Newfoundland, there is a significant management system in place to ensure that placement and service is optimized. Newfoundland teachers share the concerns identified in the literature. Younghusband (1999) voiced some of these concerns for the implications of the Pathways model for the regular classroom teacher and, consequently, for the students themselves. Her concerns where underscored by the categorical model that Newfoundland has adopted where students have to be diagnosed through comprehensive assessments before special education services can be initiated. As a result of this policy, students who do not meet the criteria for special education will remain in regular education, regardless of their ability to cope there. These concerns are additionally significant at the high school level where the higher content and faster pace result in greater pressure on teachers and students. Younghusband (2000) reports on teacher stress in Newfoundland and found that "Ninety-five percent of the teachers described their job responsibilities as increasing (Q2) yet 74% felt they did not have the resources they need" (p.4). High school special education illustrates the need for appropriate teacher training and effective resources. The training of special educators is juxtaposed against regular education teachers, where the former are heavily trained in principles of exceptionality and have little training in content while the latter have the opposite focus in their degree programs. Younghusband (1999) identifies that a part of this problem is the lack of special education courses in the degree programs for regular education teachers. The literature on inclusion is as conflicting as public opinion and as diverse as the practice. This diversity is well established in Newfoundland with teachers and parents raising demands that can conflict. If the entire planning process follows the belief of "best-interests" of the child, what happens when perceptions differ? Supporting Learning: The Report of the Ministerial Panel on Educational Delivery in the Classroom (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2000) recognized this diversity and controversy in a system that is growing itself. The report identified that 14% of the provinces students are receiving special education, up from 9% ten years ago, while expenditures on student assistants have grown 150% in a similar time frame. (p.23). They state: "While there are many cases where children require sustained and intensive educational supports, there is a growing expectation of "one-to-one" service that, in some cases, is neither in the best interest of the child, nor fiscally sustainable" (p.23). The panel called for a reassessment of special education to balance resource deployment with the needs of the child. Interestingly, the panel also spoke about the growing challenge of inclusion for students with severe emotional/behavioural disorders and recommended "alternate education programs…in appropriate settings" (p.34) to meet the needs of this population of students. While no recommendation spoke specifically to a philosophy of inclusion, the panel appeared to respect the provinces' continuum of placement model, based upon the best interests of the child. Summary Special education has received much positive attention in recent years and continues to enjoy an examination of delivery models. While the issue of inclusion continues to provide food for thought in the midst of this reflective process, it appears that there is little debate as to whether it will survive as a core principle and preferred goal in the continuum of programming options (Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995). What is debatable is whether or not it is indeed in the best interest of all students, especially those with emotional/behavioural problems and severe developmental delays. Also questionable are the type and degree of supports required. A review of the literature clearly reflects the divisiveness of the topic; rapid moves to inclusion may not be in the best interest of the student, the teacher or the school. Special education is not a place but a process of individualizing service based on the needs of the student (Hockenbury, Kauffman, & Hallahan, 2000) and is, as the Supreme Court of Canada implied in the Emily Eaton case, the primary responsibility of decision-makers. The literature can guide us well in ensuring that future practice is made more effective. Teacher training, teacher support, appropriate resources and additional research are required to assist with special education in general. In Newfoundland, these themes are as salient as in any other area and have been long identified by stakeholders. An additional challenge here appears to be the diversity in what is in the best interests of the child and the growing demand for more services in a system that reports to be generous as is. Perhaps this reflects more on the planning process for these children and whether it truly is participatory in nature, resulting in mutual decisions. Perhaps what is needed is the application of what has already been learned from research, that special educators do best by teaching and that energies should return to quality instruction and move away from the system management that has dominated the special education agenda in recent years (Kaufman, 1994; Zigmond, Jenkins, Fuchs, Deno, & Fuchs, 1995). One area that may well provide direction with this process is planning for students with severe emotional/behavioural needs. The literature reflects the belief, as recommended in Supporting Learning (2000), that placement requires a careful planning of the needs of the child as well as the other children and the ability of the regular classroom to balance this. Newfoundland's model of special education introduces the difference between alternate programs and alternate sites. From the experience of this writer, having established an alternate school and administered it for three years, alternate sites is a complex way to meet a child's needs. At the same time, programming for children with severe emotional/behavioural needs in the regular classroom is also complex and not possible for all. Perhaps, the answer is in finding a middle ground between the two extremes by focusing on diverse strategies, improved instructional planning, and alternate programs based on individual needs. In examining the gap between research and practice, Heward (2000) underscores this focus on classroom approaches by stating, "While there is a significant gap between what is relatively understood and what is poorly understood or not understood at all, the more distressing gap may be between what research has discovered about teaching and learning and what is practiced in the classroom" (p.38). An increased focus on what is needed to prepare all teachers, special and general education, to enter the classroom and support them appropriately once there might well be the true reform that is needed. Nonetheless, the intensity of educational reform, the criticisms of special education, and the rigidity of radical inclusionists have placed special education at a crossroads (Kauffman, 1994; Kauffamn, 1999; Zigmond and Baker, 1995). In negotiating a path through this crossroads the following advice may prove helpful: As we begin to understand the pragmatics of educational reform, it is clear that we are as far from solutions as we have ever been. We must find a way to balance the values of inclusion with the commitment to teaching individual students what they need to learn. The full inclusion that we have studied tips this scale. Future reform efforts that combine inclusive schooling with the additional resources and specially trained personnel needed to achieve the individual educational goals of students…in whatever service option is appropriate, might achieve that elusive equilibrium (Zigmond & Baker, 1995. p.250).
Andrews, J., & Lupart, J. (2000). The Inclusive Classroom. 2nd ed. Nelson Thomson Learning, Scarborough, ON. Bowlby, B. & Wooton-Regan, J. (1998). An Educators Guide to Human Rights. Aurora Professional Press. Aurora, Ontario. Cook, B.G., Gerber, M.M., & Semmell, M.I. (1997). Are effective school reforms effective for all students? The implications of joint outcome production for school reform. Exceptionality, 7. 131-137. Department of Education. (1998). Pathways to Programming and Graduation: A Handbook for All Teachers and Administrators. St. John's: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education. (1999). Special Education Policy Manual (draft). St. John's: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Editor (1996). The Journal of Special Education, 30(3). 229-231) Eaton V. Brant County Board of Education (1997). 1 S.C.R. 241 (SCC) Friend, M., Bursuck, W., & Hutchinson, N. (1998). Including Exceptional Students. Allyn and Bacon. Scarborough, ON. Fox, N.E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64(1). 81-98. Gibb,S.A., Allred, K., Ingram, C.F., Young, J.R., & Egan, W.M. (1999). Lessons learned from the inclusion of students with emotional behavioural disorders in one junior high school. Behavioral Disorders, 24(2). 122-136. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (1996). Coordination of Services to Children and Youth With Special Needs in Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John's: Author. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2000). Supporting Learning: Ministerial Panel on Educational Delivery in the Classroom. St. John's: Author. Heward, W.L. (2000). Exceptional Children. An Introduction to Special Education. Prentice-Hall Inc. New Jersey. Hockenbury, J.C., Kauffman, J.M, & Hallahan, D.P. (2000). What is right about special education. Exceptionality, 8(1). 3-11. Kauffman, J.M. (1994). Places of Change: Special Education's power and identity in an era of educational reform. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(10). 610-618. Kauffman, J.M. (1999). Commentary : Today's special education and its messages for tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4) 244-254. Kauffman, J. M. (2000). The special education story: obituary, accident report, conversion experience, reincarnation, or none of the above? Exceptionality, 8(1). 61-71. Kauffman, J.M., Lloyd, J.W., Baker,J. & Riedel,T.M. (1995). Inclusion of all students with emotional or behavioural disorders? Let's think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76. 542-546. Kirk, S., Gallagher, J. & Anastasiow, N. (1997). Educating Exceptional Children. 8th Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston Macmillan,D.L., Gresham,F.M., & Forness,S.R. (1995) Full inclusion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 21(2). 145-159. Martin, K.F., Lloyd, J.W., Kauffman, J.M. & Coyne, M. (1995). Teachers perceptions of educational placement decisions for pupils with emotional or behavioural disorders. Behavioural Disorders, 20(2). 106-117. Neufeldt, A.H. & Mathieson, R. (1995). Empirical dimensions of discrimination against disabled people. Health and Human Rights Journal, 1(2), 174-189. O'Shea, D. J., & O'Shea, L.J., (1998). Learning to include: Lessons for a high school without special education services. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(1). 40-48. Putnam,J.W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R.H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6). 553-576. Rioux, M. (1984). Labelled disabled and wanting to work. In Judge R.S. Abella, Commissioner (1984). Equality in Employment - A Royal Commission Report. Research Studies Supplement, Ottawa: Supply and Service. 613-614. Rothstein, L.F. (2000). Special Education Law, 3rd ed. Addison Wesley Longman. New York. Sabornie, E.J. (2000) What is good about special education. Exceptionality, 8(1). 61-71. Sale, P. & Carey, D.M. (1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62(1). 6-19. Salend, S. J. (1999). So what's with our inclusion program? Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(2). 46-54. Salend, S.J. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classrooms. 4th ed. Merrill Prentice Hall. New Jersey. Schwean, V.L. Saklofske, D.H., Shatz, E. & Falk,G. (1996). Achieving supportive integration for children with behavioural disorders in Canada: multiple paths to realization. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 11(1). 33-50. Scruggs, T. E. and Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher Perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1). 59-74. Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T.V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher Perceptions of the regular education initiative. Exceptional Children, 58(1). 9-23. Smith, T.E., Polloway, E.A., Patton, J.R., & Dowdy, C.A. (1998). Teaching Students With Special Needs in Inclusive Settings. Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts. Smith, T.E., Polloway, E.A., Patton, J.R., Dowdy, C.A., & Heath, N.L. (2001). Teaching Students With Special Needs in Inclusive Settings. Canadian Ed. Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts. Statutes of Newfoundland (1997) c.S-12. An act to revise the law respecting the operation of schools in the province. St. John's, NF: Queen's Printer. Taylor, R.L., Richards, S.B., Goldestein, P.A., & Schilit, J. (1997). Teacher perceptions of inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(3). 50-54. Weber, K. (1994). Special Education in Canadian Schools. Highland Press, Thornhill, Ontario. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Younghusband, L. (1999). Where are we going with pathways. The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, 27(1-2). Available online [http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/fall99/young.html]. Younghusband, L. (2000). Teacher stress in one school district of Newfoundland and Labrador: A pilot program. The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, 28(1-2). [Available online http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/fall00/younghusband.htm]. Zigmond, N. P. (1996). Educating students with disabilities: The future of special education. In J.W. Lloyd, E.J. Kameenui, & Chard, D. (Eds), Issues in Educating Students with Disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum. Zigmond, N. & Baker, J.M. (1995). Concluding comments: current and future practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2). 245-250. Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, D., Deno, S., & Fuchs, L. (1995). When students fail to achieve satisfactorily. Phi Delta Kappan, 77. 303-306. |