Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ut h
Introduction
351
model, the services and nature of the schools of labeling, segregation, and exclusion of the
are in need of improvement-not further clas past. Authors such as Lipsky (2005) claim that
sifying its students who are suffering under such a system fosters the growth and develop
the schools care. Further, including students ment of each student to his or her potential
with differences ought to be a part of a model
regardless of ability or disability.
According system of school improvement. According
to Lipsky (2005), such a
clude strong
system should in to Lipsky and Gartner (1998), school im
leadership, quality teachers, provement with a foundation of including
challenging curriculum, differentiated in all
students incorporates an end to labeling
struction, careful and regular assessments,
students and shutting them out of the regular engagement of parents and community, and
classroom to obtain needed services (p. 81). a focus on the meeting of standards and the
Often miscommunication among pol
achievement of outcomes (p. 156). Similarly,
icy-makers such as government officials, Crockett (2002) claims, What schools really
administrators, school boards, and local require are responsive leaders-knowledgeeducational associations leads to confusion able persons in positions of influence who are
and mismanagement at the classroom lev
committed to ensuring contexts that support
el. According to Ainscow, Farrell, Tweddle learning for each and every student (p. 157).
and Malki (1999), Within the data, it was
Several studies have gathered evidence
apparent that there was general support forregarding performance in the inclusive en
inclusive education but enormous differences
vironment. Farrell, et al. (2007) studied
the of opinion about LEA inclusion policies and relationship between the inclusion of
students what they might involve (p. 2). The differ
with disabilities and academic
achievement in ing agendas of the various stakeholders could
primary and secondary
schools in England. place teachers and parents in a precarious They examined
several
academic performance at position regarding how their student will
traditional benchmarks and sought a receive the best education. In another study,
relationship between that performance and
Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2004), identify the level of inclusiveness at that school. First,
the different pressures and the nature of the they found no significant statistical relation
tensions between national policies for raisingship between the performance of a district
standards and reducing marginalization (p. and its level of inclusiveness. That is, in all,
137). Zaretsky (2005) notes the lack of con
the performance of a rather segregated group
sistent dialogue between principals, parents, (or group without students with disabilities)
and teachers as problematic to orchestrating could not be statistically distinguished from
a successful environment. Perpetuating an a more inclusive group- which of course in
us versus them division between scholars cluded students of more varying ability. The
in special education and disability studies is authors show the miniscule impact of includ
counterproductive and damaging to attempts
ing a great number of students in the
district, by practitioners to attend to multiple interests
in showing that introducing
students eligible and ways ofknowing (p. 82). Such examples
for a free school
meal had 15.54 times more highlight the difficulties associated with put negative impact
on student scores than the ting theory into practice in regard to creating introduction of
Thus, they concluded that
students with special needs. an inclusive environment.
schools should not Constructing a new educational envi
worry about the inclusive
environment nega ronment with such bold aspirations would
tively impacting the
performance of students
certainly require a shift from the dual system without disabilities.
Setting
2,679
Participants
34.1%
3.4%
13.3%
Measures
Results
N
M
114.00 432.25
Inclusive
61.00
Levenes
Sig
.514
-1.886 .061*
424.52
*p > .05
Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics
for the students test scores for the second
research question.
Segregated
417.66
Inclusive
417.42
Total
417.57
Number (N)
102.00
53.00
155.00
Std. Deviation
21.87
22.28
21.94
Minimum
373.00
375.00
373.00
Maximum
495.00
464.00
495.00
Range
122.00
89.00
122.00
Statistic
Mean
Segregated
427.48
Inclusive
417.34
Total
425.28
Number (N)
126.00
35.00
161.00
21.68
Std. Deviation
22.05
18.48
Minimum
374.00
389.00
374.00
Maximum
492.00
456.00
492.00
Range
118.00
67.00
118.00
indepen
of stu
(experi
(control)
Levenes
Sig
35.00
-2.487 .014*
417.34
*p < .
Table 5 shows the results o f the indepen
05 dent samples t Test for performance of stuTable 8 displays the descriptive statistics
dents from the inclusive environment (experi
for
the
students test scores for the fourth re on
mental) and segregated environment (control)
search
question.
the OGT.
Sig
102.00 417.66
.900
Inclusive
Statistic
Levenes
53.00
-.065
.948*
417.42
*p > .05
Table 6 displays the descriptive statistics
for the students test scores for the third re
search question.
Segregated
Inclusive
Total
Mean
424.35
423.06
Number (N)
136.00
51.00
187.00
Std. Deviation
17.09
15.28
16.59
Minimum
381.00
377.00
377.00
Maximum
468.00
451.00
468.00
Range
87.00
74.00
91.00
424.00
had absolutely no impact on the instruction their performance was statistically unaffected or
assigning of students to groups. The stu
according to this study. Also, the sample and
dents without disabilities were assigned to population somewhat limit the ability to gen
their classroom assignments per the standard eralize the results to the extent that one would
scheduling practices that randomly assigned like to infer from the study. In this instance,
students without disabilities or any other spe
a suburban Southwestern Ohio School rated
cial considerations to either the segregated or Excellent by the state demonstrated little or
inclusive environment.
no significant difference in the performance
The integrity of the study was maintained
of students in the inclusive environment ver
throughout by controlling a number of differ
sus the segregated environment. Certainly,
ent factors that could threaten the validity of it could be reasonably expected that these
the study. First, the randomness of the student
results could be replicated in similar settings
placements was ensured by the schools uti
in schools with similar demographics who
lization of a computer program to randomly
have constructed content area departments
place those students who did not have special with the degree of uniformity of curriculum
placement restrictions into both the inclusive and instruction and similar approaches to the
and segregated environments. Next, teacher
inclusion of students with disabilities into the
certification, class size, and curriculum were general education classroom.
all quite consistent. For example, teachers of
Another fact worth noting is that mathe
the same course gave common assessments matics was the only content area to register a
to their students at the end of each unit to significant difference in performance between
gauge each classs progress in respect to the the two groups. Though the difference in per
other classes within the content area.
formance was slight, it was statistically signif
However, there were other unavoidable
icant. Another way that the mathematics class
aspects of the study that will need further re
es differed from the other three content areas
search for their impact to be fully understood.
pertained to course offerings. While there was
First, most students attended a segregated a great deal of uniformity in the courses for
class for some content areas and an inclusive
each content area for social studies, science,
class for other content areas. It is plausible and reading (American Studies, Biology, and
that there could be a cross-class impact that 10th Grade English, respectively), there were
is currently unknown. That is, the fact that several more classes that had to be considered
a student attends an inclusive science class in order to account for all of the randomly
could impact her performance in her segregat
placed 10th grade students in mathematics
ed reading class. Additionally, the number of classes including Algebra, Geometry, Algebra
cases for each environment in the study was II, and Pre-Calculus. Further research will be
different. For example, the segregated classes
necessary to determine exactly what aspect of
had 114, 102, 126, and 136 cases involved in
those inclusive mathematics classes
slightly
the study, while the inclusive classes had 61, negatively impacted student performance. 53,
35, and 51 cases involved in the study.
Science, social studies, and reading all
Further, the topography, methods, and styles
failed to register a significant difference in
of instruction within those inclusive classes
performance. At the high school level, many
necessarily varied in accordance to the needs
similarities could be identified among those
of the students in the classroom. The students
courses. Whatever aspects of learning styles,
without disabilities are unavoidably impacted
universal design, or modifications to that in
by varied instructional practices. However,
struction that is occurring, clearly, the students
Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.