CLICK HERE TO UPLOAD your outline/Table of Contents for Chapter II or Section II Topic: Comparing the Factors and Impact of Teacher Shortages in Urban and Rural Schools Upload your outline for your Ta
33
The purpose of the sample table of contents is to demonstrate to doctoral students the correct format and outline to utilize in composing the contents. Note the introduction and summary are included. Five themes (main headings) and several sub-headings are included under each main heading. Also, note the left margin is at 1.5”, with the other margins set at 1.0”, as required in the dissertation in APA style. On the next page is a sample chapter II that corresponds to the information in the table of contents.
SAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction 10
History of Special Education 12
Landmark Legislation 12
Inclusive Education 16
Inclusive Classroom 17
Inclusion 18
Co-Teaching 19
Models of Co-Teaching 20
High-Leverage Practices 22
Accommodations and Modifications 23
Accommodations 24
Modifications 25
Access for All 25
Barriers to Inclusive Education 26
Teachers’ Attitudes 26
Teacher Preparation and Training 28
Administrative Attitudes and Support 29
Resources and Funding 30
Academic Achievement 31
Expectations versus Reality 31
Barriers to Academic Achievement 33
Summary 35
Chapter II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of literature related to inclusive education and the academic achievement of students with disabilities and those without disabilities who receive instruction in the inclusion classroom. First, the history of special education is outlined to include landmark legislation that paved the way for inclusive education to take shape in public schools over the course of the past 60 years to present in the United States. Secondly, the inclusion classroom and the various models of co-teaching are explored to provide an illustration of the inclusive education setting through multiple lenses. Third, the accommodations and modifications that students with disabilities receive as a part of their Individualized Education Program (IEP) are explained. The Access for All Guide (Mississippi Department of Education, 2019) is also introduced to shed light on the accommodations and modifications that are accessible to both students with disabilities and students without disabilities in Mississippi’s public schools. Barriers to inclusive education including teacher attitudes, teacher training, administrative support and funding are also presented to provide an in-depth overview of factors that hinder the success its successful implementation and its impact on students’ academic achievement in the inclusion classroom. The purpose of the review of literature is to shed light on the disconnect between the theoretical framework and practice of inclusive education and its subsequent impact on academic achievement on middle school students with and without disabilities.
History of Special Education
The landscape for the provision of special education and related services has evolved over the past 40 years. In the 1960s, students with disabilities had no access to the general education classroom or to the general education curriculum (Stone, 2019). They were educated separately from their general education peers and although they were granted the right to attend public schools, they did not have the same right to access the general education classroom as compared to those students without disabilities. Advocacy groups formed and pushed for lawmakers to change the way that students with disabilities accessed education in public schools and policymakers responded by enacting new federal policies and legal protections for students with disabilities throughout the country (Stone, 2019).
Landmark Legislation
In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Although the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and its subsequent amendments acknowledged the fact that laws specific to meeting the needs of students with disabilities were warranted, it did little to ensure them equal access to public schools (Stone, 2019). Instead, a culmination of grants and programs were created to target students with disabilities.
The 1972 class action lawsuit, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, contested Pennsylvania’s educational laws regarding the denial of disabled students’ rights to a public education. Subsequently, the court ruled on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children and determined that the state could not apply the law in a way “so as to deny any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training” (McGovern, 2015, p. 119.) In 1972, Mills v. the Board of Education concluded that students with disabilities should not be removed from the public-school setting and placed in an alternative setting without also ensuring that that they had access to the necessary supports and services to meet their individual needs (McGovern, 2015). As a result, students with disabilities were required to have “ a constitutionally adequate prior hearing and periodic review” of their progress to ensure that the setting is appropriate (McGovern, 2015, p.119).
The ESEA of 1965 laid the foundation for the first substantial legislation mandated for students with disabilities, the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (EAHCA) (Public Law 94-142) law of 1975. EAHCA introduced the provision of a Free and Appropriate education (FAPE) for students with disabilities (Eunjoo et al., 2018). This law made it a requirement for students with disabilities to attend school and be “educated to the maximum extent appropriate in the general education classroom” alongside their general education peers (Stone, 2019). The law took into consideration that not all students with disabilities could benefit from being in the general education classroom due to the nature and severity of their disability. As a result, policymakers included a continuum of LRE placements so that educators could make the best possible decision for where students with disabilities would receive the most educational benefit on an individual basis (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
Students with severe and profound disabilities who lacked the physical, cognitive, or behavioral capacity to be successful in the general education classroom also benefited from the EAHCA because the continuum of LRE placements included day treatment schools, long-term residential schools, and the most restrictive, home school (McGovern, 2015). EAHCA also paved the way for parents to advocate for their children’s rights by creating and implementing procedural safeguards such as impartial hearings and due process which were used as a means to resolve disagreements between parents and local educational agencies regarding the rights of students with disabilities. However, parents still had minimal opportunity to give input in the educational attainment of their children with disabilities (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was also a monumental component of EAHCA that ensured a plan to address students’ present levels of performance and achievement, individualized goals, accommodations, modifications, supports, and services across the continuum of placements (McGovern, 2015). The IEP was also viewed as a means of providing a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) in all educational settings from the least restrictive general education classroom to a more restrictive environment, such as a day treatment school (McGovern, 2015, p. 117). The IEP committee, which consisted of teachers, service providers, parents, and other specialists unique to each students’ individual needs, became the driving force behind all decision-making for each individual student with a disability (McGovern, 2015). Policymakers believed that these concepts would level the playing field between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities by granting them access to a menu of educational placement options based on their unique needs (Stone, 2019).
In the landmark case of the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), a U. S. District court judge initially ruled that a deaf first grader who was not provided with an interpreter in her classroom was not afforded with a free and appropriate education which consequently impeded her ability to reach her maximum potential in the general education classroom (Eunjoo et al., 2018). This ruling was later affirmed by a Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The district maintained that providing the student with a hearing aid and a tutor was sufficient enough to help the student access the curriculum and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. As a result, the initial ruling was overturned. The school district was found to have provided the student with a free and appropriate public education by creating a standard for “educational benefit” all students with disabilities throughout the country (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
In 1990 the EAHCA became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In its subsequent revisions in 1997 and 2004, parents were given the right to be included the decision-making process for students with disabilities (McGovern, 2015). IDEA also paved the way for students to access the general education curriculum through the use of assistive technology and individualized accommodations and modifications provided at every level on the continuum of LRE placements including the general education classroom (Stone, 2019).
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was also an important component of IDEA during this time because it outlined the provision of special education and related services and became a requirement for decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis with the participation of what became known as the IEP team and approval of parents (Stone, 2019). The 13 categories of disabilities were also established that included disabilities such as autism, traumatic brain injury, and specific learning disability and its subcategories (Eunjoo et al., 2018). A developmental delay disability category was also implemented at each state’s discretion for students with cognitive, adaptive, social, physical, communicative delays under the age of nine.
Prior to 2001, students with disabilities were not a part of state and local school districts’ accountability models for academic achievement. However, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 changed the way schools in the United States approached evaluating the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002; Stone, 2019). States were required to create standardized measures to assess the academic achievement in core subjects across all grade levels. Additionally, alternative methods of assessments were also required for students with significant cognitive disabilities who were unable to perform at the level of those without disabilities (Stone, 2019). In 2015, President Barak Obama signed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which changed the landscape of education for schools and students throughout the country. ESSA improved the quality of instruction that all students received and gave states the autonomy to create accountability models that were tailored towards meeting the needs of students with disabilities and low-performing general education students (U. S. Department of Education, 2015).
Inclusive Education
Students with disabilities being integrated into general education classrooms for purpose of having access to the general education classroom became known as mainstreaming (Donohue, & Bornman, 2015). Although mainstreaming students with disabilities into general education classrooms proved to offer many social benefits, it had minimal educational benefits for this group of learners. Educators and parents soon began to realize that simply placing students with disabilities in the general education classroom was not enough, and as a result, determined that it was necessary to also give them access to additional resources within the general education classroom setting to promote their overall success (Gilmour, 2019). Inclusive education or inclusion became widely known as a means by which students with disabilities could receive instruction in the general education or inclusion classroom while also having access to additional support and services that were needed to bridge the gap between their ability and achievement (De Beco, 2018).
According to Gilmour (2019), general education teachers in the inclusion classroom were responsible for providing instruction, accommodations, and modifications in all subject areas to all students in the classroom including exceptional learners. De Beco (2018) explained that rather than removing students with disabilities from the general education classrooms to receive instruction, special education teachers would go to their core classrooms to assist the general education teacher in providing the individualized accommodations, modifications, and specially designed instruction that their students needed while also assisting the general education teacher and general education students. Over time, various models of inclusive education were formed and implemented in an effort to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities and fulfill the obligation of the laws that protected their rights to be educated with their general education counterparts (Stone, 2019).
Inclusive Classroom
Agran et al. (2020) maintained that students with disabilities received maximum benefit from being educated in the general education classroom. Stone (2019) argued that while mainstreaming special needs students into inclusive classrooms was “the centerpiece of the IDEA,” it was not enough to promote the academic success of students with disabilities (p. 528). In fact, the inclusive classroom continued to be a place where students with disabilities lacked the resources and support that they needed to achieve at the same rate as their general education peers. Both Agran et al. (2020) and Stone (2019) agreed that students with disabilities would receive the most educational benefit by being placed in their least restrictive environment, which in most cases was the general education classroom. Providing accommodations, modifications, supports and services that they needed such as push-ins and co-teaching would also promote educational benefits to students with disabilities as well as positively impact the overall learning experiences and educational outcomes for their general education peers (Agran et al, 2020; Stone, 2019).
Inclusion
Over time, students with disabilities who were mainstreamed into the general education classroom to receive instruction as well as specialized supports, and services became known as inclusion students and the term general education classroom became commonly referred to as the inclusion classroom, which was the least restrictive environment on the continuum of placements for most students with mild and moderate disabilities (Stone, 2019). Stone (2019) argued that dumping large numbers of students with disabilities in the inclusion classroom setting without considering their individual disabilities was disadvantageous because general education teachers could not be expected to handle the task of reaching all learners and providing the specialized instruction that students with disabilities so badly needed, especially on the secondary level. DeMartino and Specht (2018) suggested that general education teachers and special education teachers were both needed in the inclusion classroom to work collaboratively to provide instruction, manage student behaviors, and provide accommodations and modifications to students with disabilities, while also promoting the academic achievement of those student without disabilities. This model of the special education teacher and general education teacher working together in the inclusive classroom to meet the needs of all learners became known as co-teaching (DeMartino & Specht, 2018).
Co-Teaching
DeMartino and Specht (2018) explained that having two highly-qualified teachers co-teaching in the inclusive classroom was beneficial to both students with and without disabilities. However, general education and special education teachers needed to be skilled in their respective content areas and be knowledgeable of each student’s unique needs in order to promote a positive, productive learning experience for all learners (DeMartino & Specht, 2018). Brawand and King-Sears (2017) maintained that although the balanced co-teaching model that involved both teachers having shared responsibility for instruction and students in the classroom was ideal, it was not the model that was most often used in the inclusive classroom. Instead, co-teaching model that involved the general education teacher being responsible for instruction while the special education acted as a teacher’s assistant was the most prevalent, yet ineffective form of co-teaching observed in the inclusion classroom (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017). Brawand and King-Sears, (2017 and DeMartino and Specht (2018) agreed that in addition to the “leader and assistant” model of co-teaching, general education and special education teachers needed to explore and implement other methods of co-teaching to ensure educational benefit and to promote the academic achievement of general education and special education students in the inclusive classroom.
Models of Co-Teaching
Brawand and King-Sears (2017) explored six models of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms to determine the benefits and disadvantages that that they had on providing high-quality instructional experiences to all learners in the inclusive classroom. DeMartino and Specht (2018), also explored various models of co-teaching and determined that collaboration amongst the general education teacher and the special education teacher was not only the key ingredient to the successful implementation of the co-teaching models, but also to students’ academic achievement in the inclusive classroom. Co-teaching models that were implemented in inclusive classrooms were to include practical and feasible applications in meeting the state and federal regulations for students with disabilities while also meeting the individual needs of students with disabilities as well as the needs of general education students who also struggled to understand various concepts (DeMartino & Specht, 2018) The models of co-teaching explored in the study included the following: One Teach, One Observe; One Teach, One Drift; Station Teaching; Parallel Teaching; Alternative Teaching; and Team Teaching (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017).
The One Teach, One Observe Model consisted of one teacher, usually the general education teacher, being responsible for teaching the lesson and the other teacher, usually the special education teacher, observing and ensuring that students with disabilities were receiving accommodations and modifications as per their IEP while also making sufficient progress on their individualized goals (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017). In this model, the special education teacher was usually the sole person responsible for assessing students, collecting student data, and maintaining ongoing data for students with disabilities (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017). Similarly, in the One Teach, One Drift Model, one teacher taught while the other teacher paced throughout the classroom providing individual assistance and behavior management to students with disabilities and general education students as needed (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017).
Brawand and King-Sears (2017), described Station Teaching as small group instruction provided in the form of ability-based centers throughout the inclusion classroom in which each teacher caters to a different ability level. In this model, there is a minimum of two centers for teacher-led instruction and in some cases, a third center was devoted to independent instruction for the higher-level learners. Station Teaching gave students the opportunity to rotate amongst each teacher’s group based on individual skill levels and content mastery. Although Parallel Teaching also consisted of teacher-led groups, it slightly differed from Station Teaching because the groups were not ability-based. Instead, Parallel Teaching allowed for teachers to teach the same standards and concepts to small groups at the same time (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017).
Comparatively, Alternative Teaching involved one teacher providing whole group instruction to the majority of students while the other teacher worked with a smaller group of students in another section of the classroom to provide enrichment and remediation on either the same standards or alternative standards (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017). Lastly, in Team Teaching, the most ideal form of co-teaching, both teachers shared dual responsibility for teaching, providing accommodation and modifications, and managing the behaviors in the inclusion classroom (Brawand & King-Sears, 2017). In this model of co-teaching, students benefitted from the collaboration and differentiated instruction provided by the general education teacher and special education teacher. Additionally, the Team-Teaching model provided a level of behavioral management and support that strengthened teacher-student relationships and positively influenced student learning (McLeskey et al., 2017).
High-Leverage Practices
High-leverage practices are paramount to effective teaching and learning for students with and without disabilities in the inclusion classroom. McLeskey et al., (2019) described four levels of high-leverage practice areas: collaboration, assessment, social/emotional/behavioral, and instruction. Collaboration involved special education teachers teaming general education teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders to assess and meet the needs of the whole child. Through collaboration, special education teachers and general education teachers were able to consider the unique backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and cultural differences of all learners to design individualized instruction and goals tailored to each student’s needs. High-leverage practices in the area of assessment provided the opportunity for teachers to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach to evaluating student learning. Assessment practices were tailored to students’ individual strengths and weaknesses using a variety of measures that provided a more accurate account of students’ academic abilities (McLeskey et al, 2019).
The social/emotional/behavioral high leverage practices provided a means by which teachers could teach students the various coping skills that they needed to manage unwanted behaviors, which directly impacted student achievement (McLeskey et al, 2019). These practices included establishing clear rules, expectations, and guidelines, modeling desired behaviors, providing positive reinforcement and feedback, and consistently observing student behavior to develop, review, and revise plans to address unwanted behaviors in the inclusion classroom (McLeskey et al, 2019).
Although McLeskey et al. (2019) discussed multiple high-leverage practices to maximize the effectiveness of the inclusive classroom, the most critical high leverage practices were in the area of instruction. The high-leverage practices in the area of instruction included promoting independent learning, making curriculum adaptations, and providing clear instruction and feedback based on each student’s individualized IEP goals. In order to meet the diverse needs of learners in the inclusive classroom, special education teachers and general education teachers needed to become more knowledge of high-leverage instructional practices, pedagogical content, and the resources that were available to fill the voids between students’ ability levels and achievement levels (McLeskey et al, 2019).
Accommodations and Modifications
In an effort to ensure that students with disabilities were able to access the general education curriculum, general education and special education teachers implemented the use of accommodations and modifications in the inclusion classroom (Carey et al., 2019). The terms “accommodation” and “modification” were often used interchangeably, however, researchers have maintained that there were many unique differences between the two (McGlynn & Kelly, 2019). Accommodations included changes in the way students accessed the general education curriculum while modifications involved a change in the presentation of the curriculum (Mississippi Department of Education, 2019). Although modifications were allowable, the use of accommodations was considered as more appropriate for the inclusive classroom because they did not compromise the grade level standards, rigor, or accessibility to the general education curriculum (McGlynn & Kelly, 2019). Educators in inclusion classrooms were responsible for providing accommodations to meet students’ individual needs regarding presentation, response, timing, scheduling, and setting on assignments and tests (Mississippi Department of Education, 2019).
Accommodations
Sitting at the front of the classroom, testing with a familiar teacher, reading-aloud, and extended time were among the accommodations that were considered as most beneficial to bridging the gap between students’ ability and their achievement in the inclusion classroom (Giusto & Ehri, 2019). The read-aloud accommodation became one of the most commonly used accommodations for students with disabilities (Giusto & Ehri, 2019). It provided students with reading deficits with a way to access the general education curriculum and to demonstrate their understanding of various concepts despite their limitations with decoding, fluency, and comprehension (Giusto & Ehri, 2019).
Rather than modifying assignments and tests, Giusto and Ehri (2019) suggested that students with disabilities simply needed extra time to perform on grade level. Therefore, the extended time accommodation was implemented to level the playing field and give an added sense of comfort for students with disabilities who struggled to meet expectations within a required time frame (McGlynn & Kelly, 2019). Testing through the end of the day or over the course of multiple days was an allowable means by which the extended time accommodation was implemented for district and state-wide tests for students with disabilities (Mississippi Department of Education, 2019).
Modifications
De Beco (2018) suggested that modifications or changes to instructional methods and materials, were needed to bridge the gaps and “to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory experience” in the inclusion classroom (p. 403). De Beco (2018) further explained that modifications were also warranted for students with disabilities to give them the added sense of belonging and participation that students without disabilities received from being educated in the inclusion classroom. Although the use of modifications changed the content of the general education curriculum and was viewed as quite burdensome by those general education and special education teachers responsible for its implementation, it was also cited as beneficial and equitable means educational attainment and overall knowledge retention for students with and without disabilities who received their primary instruction in inclusion classrooms (Muega, 2016).
Access for All
Realizing that all students benefitted from the use of accommodations and modifications in the general education classroom and on high-stakes tests, the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) developed the Access for All Guide (Mississippi Department of Education, 2019). The purpose of the Access for All Guide was to serve as a resource to connect general educators with special educators on their quest to make accessing the general education curriculum more feasible for both students with and without disabilities through the use of accommodations for all (Mississippi Department of Education, 2019). The guide explained the difference between accommodations and modifications and outlined the use of accommodations across multiple subject areas and grade levels. The guide was organized by deficit skill area and included frequently asked questions that guided educators in their decision-making for the appropriate use of suggested accommodations to address each deficit area. Although the Access for All Guide was designed to provide a means by which educators can meet the needs of students with identified disabilities, as well as general education students with deficit skill areas, there have been no studies to confirm its usefulness or effectiveness with regards to improving educational outcomes and academic achievement (Mississippi Department of Education, 2019).
Barriers to Inclusive Education
Although proponents of inclusive education were able to identify models of inclusion and the advantages that students with and without disabilities would receive from being educated in this setting, its successful implementation has been plagued with multiple barriers. Teachers’ attitudes, teacher preparation, and administrative support were among the most common barriers to successful inclusive education (Muega, 2016). Lack of funding and availability of resources were also cited as major barriers to the successful implementation of inclusive education in public schools and private schools throughout the country (Bualar, 2016). Further research by Gilmour et al. (2019) indicated that students in inclusive classrooms that did not have access to the necessary supports and services were unsuccessful and lacked the bare minimum of resources that were needed to help them achieve academically.
Teachers’ Attitudes
Sandhu (2017) argued that in order for students to be successful in the inclusion classroom, teachers must develop positive and receptive attitudes toward inclusive education before any teaching or learning can take place. Sandhu (2017) also pointed out that teachers’ attitudes, whether positive or negative, had the most impact on the academic achievement and overall success of students with and their general education peers in the inclusive classroom. General education teachers with negative attitudes toward inclusive education were less likely to utilize the various models of inclusion, provide accommodations or modifications, and differentiate the instruction to meet the needs of students with disabilities in the inclusion classroom (Sandhu, 2017). On the other hand, teachers with negative attitudes consistently sent students with disabilities out of the inclusion classroom to receive assistance from the special education teacher in the special education classroom, which was not considered as their least restrictive environment (Sandhu, 2017).
In addition to not meeting the needs of students with disabilities, according to Bualar (2016), general education teachers with negative attitudes towards inclusive education were also unreceptive to the idea of having to meet the needs of low-level or at-risk general education students in the inclusion classroom. As a result, general education teachers would segregate students with disabilities and low-level general education students from the remainder of the students in the inclusion classroom or group them together when providing instruction leaving them to suffer academically, behaviorally, and socially (Bualar, 2016). Being separated from the mainstream of the classroom created frustration, embarrassment, and a feeling of seclusion among the group of students with disabilities and the low-performing students.
Senay-İlik and Sarı (2017) maintained that general education teachers who held negative attitudes towards inclusive education were also opposed to co-planning and co-teaching with the special education teacher. Likewise, teachers with negative attitudes toward inclusive education were less likely to collaborate with support personnel, such as speech therapists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Services from other professionals helped to ensure that students with disabilities were receiving the specialized instruction, support, and services that were needed in order for them to gain the maximum benefits from the general curriculum as outlined in their Individualized Education Program (IEP) (Senay-İlik & Sarı, 2017).
Teacher Preparation and Training
In addition to teachers’ attitudes, Sandhu (2017) argued that teacher preparation, or lack thereof, was also a major barrier to successful inclusive education. First year general education teachers maintained that their formal education prepared them to teach their content areas and did not adequately prepare them for differentiating instruction to meet the needs of learners with various skill levels such as those in the inclusion classroom (Muega, 2016). Conversely, new special education teachers argued that their formal education programs focused solely on special education law and the various categories of disabilities rather than specific content knowledge (Muega, 2016). Both general education and special education teachers stated that they had received no formal education or training on co-teaching in an inclusive classroom prior to becoming a teacher (Muega, 2016). As a result, new general education teachers and special education teachers concurred that they were incapable of being effective in the inclusion classroom without receiving the necessary training and skills to successfully co-teach or provide individualized instruction, while also teaching rigor and ensuring that students show growth on high-stakes tests (Muega, 2016).
Similarly, Baldiris-Navarro, Zervas, Fabregat-Gesa, and Sampson (2016) argued that although experienced general education teachers had received multiple professional development opportunities on pedagogy and their content specific areas, they had not received any training on how to successfully create lessons that were differentiated or aligned with inclusive educational expectations. General education teachers argued that they not only lacked the ongoing preparation and training that they needed to stay abreast of current trends and strategies to create specially designed instruction, but they also lacked the training that was needed to manage student behaviors in the inclusive classroom (Baldiris-Navarro, Zervas, Fabregat-Gesa, & Sampson, 2016). Having students who presented with mild and moderate disabilities along with general education students who had various skill levels in the same classroom required ongoing preparation beyond the general professional development opportunities that were offered by the school district’s curriculum and instruction specialists in order for inclusive education to be effective (Baldiris-Navarro et al., 2016).
Administrative Attitudes and Support
Woolfson (2018) argued that the lack of administrative support was another major barrier to inclusive education. Teachers who held positive attitudes towards inclusive education and received adequate training were drastically impacted by the type of administrative support that they received during the implementation of inclusive practices in the classroom (Woolfson, 2018). Administrators who supported inclusive education promoted inclusive classrooms in which general education and special education teachers co-taught and ensured that students with disabilities were placed in the general education classroom for the full duration of the school day (Muega, 2016). Although administrators who were in favor of inclusive education were not skilled enough in inclusive practices to provide building-level trainings, they were more inclined to send their teachers, both general education and special education, to professional development opportunities that focused on co-teaching, co-planning, and implementing inclusive practices in the inclusion classroom (Muega, 2016). Conversely, administrators who held pessimistic views regarding students with disabilities and inclusive education, provided little to no support to teachers in the inclusion classroom which adversely impacted teachers’ attitudes, planning, and preparation for ensuring that students with and without disabilities received the maximum benefit of being educated in the inclusion classroom (Muega, 2016).
Resources and Funding
Along with teachers’ attitudes and poor preparation, negative administrative attitudes, lack of support, and inadequate resources were identified as barriers to successful inclusive education (Bualar, 2016). Bualar (2016) also maintained that students with disabilities were not able to access the general curriculum and receive maximum benefit in inclusion classrooms without adequate funding to secure resources such as instructional supplies, support staff, and assistive technology. Additionally, students with disabilities needed classrooms that were physically accessible and equipped with the technology that they needed to be able to access instruction as well as receive accommodations and modifications, especially for those students with auditory processing, visual deficits, or physical disabilities that prevented them from utilizing traditional educational instructional formats and materials (Bualar, 2016). Although federal special education laws mandated that students with disabilities receive instruction in the inclusion classroom alongside their general education peers to the maximum extent appropriate, state and local school districts have been limited in their funding, which had a direct impact on student achievement and the overall success of the inclusion classroom (Bualar, 2016). Due to the lack of funding and resources, teachers and administrators have been forced to become innovative in their efforts to provide a high-quality inclusive classroom environment for students with disabilities and their general education counterparts (Bualar, 2016).
Academic Achievement
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) required students with disabilities to participate in high stakes reading and math testing along with those students without disabilities (Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Lemons, 2018). Additionally, it required states to ensure that at least 95% of their identified students with disabilities participated in year-end state tests and also required the tracking of individual students and subgroups’ growth and progress toward general education academic standards (Fuchs et al., 2018). Although historically students with disabilities achieved at a much lower rate than their peers without disabilities due to lack of access to the general education curriculum, NCLB imposed strict penalties and limited federal funding to states that did not comply with the testing requirements, prompting them to change the way they approached inclusive education in hopes of improving the academic achievement and educational outcomes for all students, especially students with disabilities (Fuchs et al., 2018).
Expectations versus Reality
Although NCLB’s mandates were intended as a positive means of closing the gap between the ability and achievement of the country’s special-needs student population, critics suggested that it had the complete opposite impact and created a significant disproportionality between students with disabilities and their general education peers who received instruction in the inclusive classroom (Fuchs et al., 2018). States were thrust into accountability models that “required students with disabilities to be achieving at levels higher than what was previously expected of them,” which posed a new set of challenges for teachers in inclusion classrooms (Gilmour et al., 2019, p. 331).
Gilmour et al., (2019) found that on average, high school students with disabilities scored significantly lower than their general education peers in reading comprehension and math calculation on end-of-year tests. Fuchs et al. (2018) also found that students with disabilities were not consistently improving their academic achievement as measured by the standards in the NCLB accountability model, which further added to the achievement gap. This discrepancy in the achievement of students with disabilities when compared to those students without disabilities was attributed to the ambiguity and lack of consistency with proficiency levels and score cut points in states throughout the country (Fuchs et al., 2018). Gilmour et al. (2019) also emphasized the classification of students into various disability categories, which masked the achievement levels that districts, and states reported for subgroups.
Furthermore, Schulte and Stevens (2015) argued that students with disabilities possessed cognitive skill deficits that hindered their ability to reach the proficiency and growth level that was expected of them. Historically, students with disabilities achieved at a lower rate than students without disabilities on baseline assessments which made it “less likely that the subgroup would be able to reach grade-level proficiency standards in the time frame originally required by NCLB,” which was typically a full school year (Schulte & Stevens, 2015, p. 371). Consequently, the achievement gap within the subgroup of students with disabilities either remained constant or grew over time across multiple subject areas and disability categories (Schulte & Stevens, 2015).
Barriers to Academic Achievement
Despite existing policies designed to ensure that students with disabilities had access to the general education curriculum with the use of accommodations and modifications to the maximum extent appropriate in the inclusive classroom, barriers to their academic achievement still persisted (Schwab & Hessels, 2015). Douglas, McLinden, Robertson, Travers, and Smith (2016) pointed out that mainstreaming students with various disabilities and deficit skill levels into inclusive classrooms with general educations students who also possessed different ability levels was not only ineffective, but also unrealistic for both the students and the teachers. Further research indicated that NCLB did not take into consideration that all students, especially those with disabilities, did not learn or achieve at the same rate (Douglas et al., 2016). As a result, Douglas et al., (2016) also argued that, although students with disabilities may have the same ability level as their general education peers, “they may not be able to demonstrate their abilities under normal assessment conditions” even with the use of modifications and accommodations.
In contrast, Lemons, Vaughn, Wexler, Kearns, and Sinclair (2018) argued that high teacher-student ratios were also perceived as a barrier to successful academic achievement of students in the inclusion classroom. Lemons et al. (2018) maintained that inclusive classrooms that were comprised of large numbers of students with disabilities and low-level general education students, usually resulted in a reduced quality of instruction and teacher’s inability to effectively individualize instruction while also providing specialized accommodations and modifications as well as instructional support, enrichment, and remediation. Similarly, Schwab and Hessels (2015) added that behavior problems and behavior management also presented a barrier to academic achievement for students with and without disabilities in the large inclusion classroom. However, problem behaviors in the inclusive classroom were not exclusive to only students with disabilities, but rather exacerbated by the mixture of low-level general education and special education students being placed in the same classroom (Schwab & Hessels, 2015). Thus, the large mixed assortment of student abilities and inappropriate behaviors created a perfect storm.
Lemons et al. (2018) also cited low expectations as a barrier to academic achievement for students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom. Gilmour et al. (2019) maintained that teachers and administrators who held low expectations for the population of students with disabilities, inadvertently held those students to a lower standard and subsequently, did not provide them with the appropriate access to the general education curriculum and level of rigor that was needed to close the achievement gap between them and students without disabilities and achieved at higher rates on high-stakes tests.
Summary
The chapter II review of literature provided insight into the laws, policies, and procedures that laid the foundation for inclusive education of students with disabilities in public schools. The various models of co-teaching were defined and a delineation between the use of accommodations and modifications was made. The barriers to inclusion and academic achievement were also explored to illustrate the importance of this study.
Chapter III will include an overview of the methodology utilized in this study including an in-depth review of the study’s purpose, research questions, and hypotheses. The quantitative research design detailing the participants, instrumentation, data collection, and procedures will also be discussed to provide a basis of the study.
