Inclusion of Students with Severe Disabilities Into the Classroom - Research Paper Example

Inclusion of Students with Severe Disabilities Into the Classroom Abstract The inclusion of students with severe disabilities into the classroom is one which continues to raise debates among the community and school systems. Current policies have mandated the inclusion of students with severe disabilities into the classroom. The result from the federal policies and pressures of the community is a restructuring of educational systems, teacher curriculum and social aspects of teaching. While full inclusion is known to assist with the self – esteem, social presence and academic opportunity for those with disabilities, there are also questions about the gaps that are associated with inclusion. This research paper will examine how inclusion continues to change teaching styles while creating a different understanding of how multiple intelligences and diverse learning can be incorporated into the classroom. Introduction The ability to incorporate children of different backgrounds into school systems is one that is created several debates because of the current format and system of the institutions. Inclusion of students with severe disabilities into the classroom is a problem which continues to arise for those that are interested in furthering the education for the disadvantaged. The difficulties which have arisen include teaching styles, administrative expectations and the inability to have an established school system that can involve disabilities into a normal classroom setting. Identifying the difficulties that are associated with children with severe disabilities and finding ways to include children into the correct setting is one that can offer equal education and opportunity to students with disabilities. By examining aspects that are associated with severe disabilities as well as how to change the system to offer equal education opportunities provides new perspectives to learning methods and options within the classroom. This research paper will examine the changes that have been implemented since the inclusion policies have been incorporated. This includes changes with the school systems, administrators and with social settings (Praisner, 2003). There will also be an evaluation of gaps within the system, specifically to redefine what needs to be done for full inclusion practices to become more effective. Defining Inclusive Practices Students with severe disabilities used to be placed in specialized programs that were designed to work with disabled students (Carter, Hughes, 2006). Special education courses and other areas of implementation were designed specifically because there was a belief that disabled students had different learning abilities than other children. However, it has recently been found that the special education programs create complications among these students because they don’t have the same opportunities as other children. Academic performance and social development are the two areas that are hindered when students aren’t placed in the regular classroom (Agran et al, 2005). At the same time, other variables are created that don’t provide the same capabilities for learning and which cause those with severe disabilities to be left behind with the academic agenda and the ability to have substantial growth. Currently, inclusion programs have been mandated because of the hindrances that special education has on students as well as ways in which this effects diverse students, both through background and cognitive development differences (Salend, Duhaney, 1999). The complications among those with severe disabilities is being changed because of parents and educators who are beginning to see an injustice to those who are placed in educational programs in schools based on disabilities. Parents and those with disabilities are now stating that being outside of the normal classroom creates complications with social acceptance and psychological well – being. The barriers that are noted include inabilities to adapt within society, biases that are created between individuals and associations with marginalization and social isolation (Brantlinger et al, 2005). When students graduate, it becomes more difficult to be a part of society and to integrate into different environments. More important, the special education curriculum doesn’t provide the same academic level of stimulation that those with severe disabilities should have. These continuous barriers have furthered the mandates of inclusion programs with a focus on social integration and equal opportunities for learning and building networks, specifically which are outside of the barriers that were traditionally created between special education and regular classrooms (Abbott, Mcconkey, 2006). Researchers (Theoharis, Malmgren, 2005), have also noted that inclusion in the classroom is one that benefits both those with severe disabilities and others that are required to learn about diversity in the classroom by stating: “Educational scholars have suggested that in an inclusive environment, being afforded the opportunity to learn from and care for one another enriches the lives of students…. the general education classroom is considered to be a fertile ground for the development of peer interactions and relationships. These peer interactions have been empirically linked to increased achievement and increased self esteem” (Theoharis, Malmgren, 2005, 217). The components that are linked directly to those with severe disabilities are furthered by the noted changes that come from other students when required to interact with those with disabilities. The more that diversity is noted in the classroom, the easier it becomes for students to have stronger social interactions within the classroom while enriching lives after school. Enhancing the learning experience is based on noting there are several dimensions of learning styles that need to be incorporated into the classroom (Theoharis, Malmgren, 2005). Even though inclusion is now recognized by the federal government, the concept of inclusion is being met with resistance. The inability to have a prepared platform for teaching and the misunderstandings from both educators and those who are responsible for policies are creating levels of resistance with the ideology of inclusion (Sailor, 2005). Researchers (Davis, 2009) show that the inclusion helps a child to feel normal and boosts self – esteem, confidence and different social roles, many are meeting the mandate with resistance. The severity of the disability, teacher performance and experience and misunderstandings of how to include students with severe disabilities are some of the problems now being raised (Davis, 2009). For the inclusion to be effective there is the need to alter teacher attitudes and to develop more preparatory options that allow teachers to easily include students with severe disabilities into the normal classroom (Davis, 2009). The concept of inclusion is one that was defined specifically because of equal rights and boundaries which had been created. Individuals placed outside of the normal classroom because of severe disabilities have a lack in educational development (Hawken, O’Neill, 2006). Social and educational isolation as well as the inability to function with others in the classroom was some of the problems associated with those with severe disabilities being brought into an outside classroom. The inclusion that was created was used specifically because of the changes in social and academic performance that was noted with inclusion. Researchers found (Harrower, 1999) that there were drastic differences when offering full inclusion to students with severe disabilities, which means that educational and social enhancement changed when those with disabilities were incorporated into the class (Harrower, 1999). Full inclusion means that the children can’t be divided according to learning styles but instead by demographics. The rationale is to offer equal capabilities for children and the future skills which can be obtained from complete inclusion. This is furthered by creating specific requirements of how children can be divided, specifically by age and grade level, without further divisions between those in the classroom (Harrower, 1999). Educational Systems and Inclusion The need to have inclusion from teachers in their practices as a federal mandate is causing school systems, administrators and educators to reexamine teaching practices and the capabilities in including the severely disabled into normal school systems. The first way in which this is being employed is through the demands of parents and the relationship that has been created with educational systems (Idol, 2006). The parents have noted that inclusion is a fundamental right of each student and can provide more opportunities and strategies for children. Parents have challenged educational systems through the media, legalities and court systems to redefine the concept of inclusion and to state that this is an equal right to all students. Student placement in the classroom is now noted as a debate of offering equal rights to all students that are undergoing an educational system as a fundamental and equal opportunity to receive fair education (Erwin, Soodak, 1995). To begin this, policies and regulations have been incorporated into the program to create a basis that shows the community that equal opportunity is a part of the classroom (Erwin, Soodak, 1995). As parents have begun to state that the educational systems have to change for equal rights to students with severe disabilities, are also alterations that are now occurring for reform within school systems. Policies within different school systems are now effective and are mandated by the federal government, specifically based on the concept of equal rights among students with severe disabilities. The placement of students has become the fundamental component of students which is based on goals of students with severe disabilities and taking students out of educational isolation. Full inclusion models are now the basis of schools and the policies which are implemented (Downing, 2006). To define full inclusion, there is a basis of placing children in the classroom only by demographics, such as age, as well as the ability to coordinate and manage a number of children in one classroom. This is furthered by principles for placement which are now being redefined specifically for equality of education and giving all students equal enhancement within the classroom (Sailor, 1990). Full inclusion models have continued with mainstreaming the educational system so there isn’t a recognized different among those with severe disabilities and the normal classroom because of the inclusion steps that are being taken (Sailor, 1990). The educational policies that are developed within schools are not the only important aspect of those that are interested in changing inclusion practices. For this to become completely functional and effective there is also the need to alter strategies that are available to teachers (Foreman et al, 2004). Changing the classroom setting to one that is fully inclusive also requires an alteration in the educational system and the approach that is taken with those that are in the community and administrative arena. Educational systems are finding ways to develop and support teachers with the new implementation of policies so the inclusion can become a main component within schools. Developing networks, for instance, that can help with inclusion practices is one of the newer aspects that schools are using for the development of children (Foreman et al, 2004). Resources and inclusion strategies are also being used to provide a different approach to education while allowing growth to occur with those that are interested in inclusion practices. As this is provided within the school system and setting, teachers are able to change the practices and options available in the classroom while incorporating inclusion as a natural component of the class. However, the educational system also requires evaluation and renewal policies to continue to provide resources and new learning outcomes for teachers that are interested in inclusion practices. As this is done, the educational system will be able to promote the option of growth and implementation of inclusion among the school while slowly altering the policies in the school to regulations that are designated for equal opportunity (Block, 2007). Instruction in the Classroom To combat against the stigmas and associations in systems for the classroom, are different instructional strategies that can be used for complete inclusion. A relationship that is often noted is the theory of multiple intelligences, which states that each child has the capability of learning with different methodologies. By using the concept of multiple intelligences with teaching instruction, there is the ability to assist those with severe disabilities in the same classroom. Current research (Katz, Mirenda, Auerbach, 2002), has noted that focusing on a different sense of instruction in the classroom with multiple intelligence as the basis creates a stronger approach with teaching. The multiple intelligence strategy used is one that is based on all inclusive styles, such as activities and peer group work. When this is done with students of diverse backgrounds there is the ability to include those with severe disabilities specifically because of social interaction and the ability to engage behavior. When comparing this to the traditional classroom, there are sustainable differences associated with the different behaviors of students (Katz, Mirenda, Auerbach, 2002). This study shows that the ability to engage students with severe disabilities is similar to including diverse sets of individuals while incorporating different intelligent levels as a basis for instruction in the classroom. The multiple intelligence theory is furthered with the understanding that teachers have. Another research study (Solner, 1996), has indicated that it is the ability for teachers to understand this theory completely for the inclusion to work. Teacher decisions, preparation and practice are as important as incorporating multiple intelligences into the classroom. The multiple intelligence theory is one that can be combined with the theory by Vygotskian on contructivism, which states that the way that the teacher responds directly influences the classroom and the psychological growth of different students. The understanding of multiple intelligences and the ability for teachers to reach to different students with their understanding and preparation then becomes the main component for driving forward inclusion. However, for this to work, there is the need to create an understanding among teachers on how to offer this within the classroom and how to restructure teaching styles for better inclusion of all students (Solner, 1996). Another concept that is combined with the multiple intelligences and teacher approach is based on the attitudes and definitions that teachers are now creating. Both older special education teachers and teachers within the regular classroom are now beginning to incorporate students with severe disabilities through the theory of assimilation (Janney, Snell, 1997). The attitude which is being created is to approach students at all levels with theories of diversity which creates a lack of boundaries in the classroom. As students stop recognizing the severe disabilities children as being separate, they are able to change the environment toward learning. More important, the teachers are able to incorporate new types of multiple intelligence learning and alternatives that move outside of the disabilities for better learning. The concept of inclusion at this level creates an alteration because of the different developmental aspects that are able to rise in the classroom. Social changes, abilities to teach using multiple intelligences and group work become a main proponent through the assimilation and approach to diversity by teaching with this perspective (Janney, Snell, 1997). For teachers to work with the process of inclusion, the theories, preparation and attitude has to combine with new approaches to teaching. Redefining objectives, preparing new types of curriculum and focusing on group work are some of the known changes that can assist with full inclusion. Peer partners, collaborative learning, small group work and new instructional processes are now required to assist students with diverse needs in the classroom. The benefit of this is that it allows students to feel socially included while meeting the same academic requirements (Bowe, 2005). At the same time, there is the ability to support concepts of diversity while building a different style of the classroom (Demchak, 1997). To be effective in this, a hierarchy of increasing assistance can be used. This includes movement from verbal instruction and gestures to minimal physical assistance. As this is done, students can feel differences in the support needed for diverse learning while working within group settings and on an individual basis for different types of work (Demchak, 1997). The hierarchy includes basic verbal instruction followed by gestures such as touching or encouragement to support the process in various groups. The more this is done, the easier it becomes for students of diverse needs to feel incorporated into the learning process while gaining an understanding of how support can enhance academic and social needs within the classroom (Demchak, 1997). As the curriculum and newer learning environments are created, are also specific ways to tune into classroom activities. Teachers have to use different activities and problem solving methods to ensure that inclusiveness is a natural component of the classroom. The classroom activities in the curriculum are continuing to alter with new types of activities and academic topics (Flowers et al, 2005). These combine the basic academia with the need to incorporate social diversity in the classroom. The difference in the teacher activities as well as the curriculum is providing new opportunities for creative learning and activities that are more conducive to children’s needs. As teachers continue to provide basic aspects of this, are also newer types of activities and innovations that are beginning to alter the curriculum (Giangreco, 1993). The result is that teachers are now being given new opportunities and challenges to change classroom settings, curriculum and the creativity of activities for the classroom. This is incorporated with concepts such as activities for problem solving, abilities to reach diverse individuals and creating psychological balances with the inclusion of every student into a normal classroom setting (Giangreco, 1993). Social Environments and Inclusion While teachers are able to incorporate specific aspects of inclusion, there is not the ability to completely watch over classrooms without assistance. For inclusion to work with a complete and full model there is also the need to create an environment that is conducive to learning. Without the correct environment or system, there is the inability to reach students that have different learning needs (Devlin, 2005). A current problem with inclusion is because of the number of students that are required for teaching while needing to work with students of different backgrounds. To change this, the environmental and social setting has begun to alter, specifically to change social inclusion levels (Devlin, 2005). Support staff and community directly assist with this process by offering a sense of social inclusion while meeting the needs of students at different learning levels. Having the support arrangements is known to effectively alter the facilities in the classroom and the responses that children have in relation to learning through multiple intelligences. The most specific level of support through an environment with teachers that offer support is to close gaps with social inclusion that is currently within the system while offering equal opportunity and inclusion for teachers within the class structure (McConkey, Collins, 2010). Inclusion through the change of environment and social setting is only one of the methods that are shown to work with students from diverse backgrounds in this specific setting. The increase of peer interaction is as important as it alters the learning capabilities and support that is available. The inclusion developed is partly to stop the social boundaries and isolations among students, which makes group work and social interactions more important within the classroom (Hunt, 1996). A recent research study (Hunt, 1996), created a specific study over those with multiple disabilities and how they responded in the classroom. The study included changing the level of social interaction among teachers and other students within the classroom. Communication aids, media for social interactions and social exchange among teachers were all tested. It was noted that the more that social interactions were incorporated into the classroom, the easier it became for students to interact. The disabilities substantially decreased and barriers with social interaction and academic learning also decreased. This type of inclusion and the use of social aids and interaction as a base can then be noted as one of the most effective means for changing levels of social inclusion among students while developing new environments and methods for learning among students (Hunt, 1996). The social aids and interactions are furthered with the new designs and methods for social inclusion within the classroom. Teachers are now finding other methods to work socially with those from diverse backgrounds that move beyond basic academic teaching and into peer groups that are more open to diversity. Peer group work is one of the social interactions which is allowing students to be included at all levels and which is creating different levels of interaction. Reformatting the classroom with group activities and peer networks that are with smaller groups enhances the learning and provides students with new opportunities within the classroom (Brantlinger et al, 2005). This is combined with social learning and etiquette that is offering social inclusion at other levels. Social stigmas are being represented through students with severe disabilities as the peer group work is also allowing teachers to treat students as a normal student. The result is that the peers in each group are being taught to treat those with disabilities in the same manner (Abbott, 2006). Diminishing the boundaries from those with disabilities is creating more encouragement with interactions and is providing new levels of interaction with students. More important, the adult interference is minimized with peer support which is allowing the new social interactions to provide more inclusiveness among those with the needed academic components (Janney, Snell, 1996). Future Implications While there are several ways in which inclusion is becoming a main component of those that are a part of the environment, there are also other factors that are linked to ideologies of social interactions and teaching (Agran et al, 2005). Full inclusion is one which is still noted as not being directly achieved and has several gaps among teachers, educational institutions and the expected normal aspects of teaching within the community. Altering these different aspects of the teaching and academic as well as social experience of those from diverse backgrounds can help to continue to alter the way in which teaching is approached in the classroom (Carter, 2006). The idea of inclusiveness and offering equal opportunities in the classroom is one that carries several implications for the future and what is necessary among those that are teaching and in the community (Carter, 2006). A gap that is currently considered for the fully inclusive classroom is based on the concept of creating a different environment for students. Currently, there is a push toward building small groups and activities that require peer interactions (Demchak, 1997). While this assists with the lack of social isolation, other implications and questions are also rising. One is the lack of restrictions in the environment that are also required for those in the classroom (Demchak, 1997). The group activities are leading to a sense of deinstitutionalization among those in the classroom. The institution is no longer working as a traditional classroom that has a specific curriculum and guidelines for academic learning. As the restrictions are continuing to be lifted are also flexible alternatives for learning that are based on student development and learning paces (Taylor, 2001). While this assists with social assistance, there are also controversies over how much children can learn within the classroom as well as how effective peer work is. If the restrictions continue to move through forced changes, then it may hinder the learning process and pace required in the classroom. For the future, teachers and administrators have to examine the balance between institutional classes and the effectiveness of peer work (Taylor, 2001). Another aspect which has to continue to be examined is how inclusion affects teachers and how this can be changed within the classroom. Even though teachers are reformatting classrooms to assist students with diverse needs, it is also known to increase the amount of stress among teachers (Forlin, 1996). In a current study (Forlin, 1996), it was noted that teachers who had to work with children with mild disabilities had difficulties with assisting the children because of increased levels of stress. The gap in learning potential, inability to adjust to completely new curriculum and the pressures to incorporate children equally creates continuous levels of stress among children (Forlin, 1996). To continue incorporating aspects of diversity and other elements of schools are also changing attitudes and the need to reexamine the quality of working life. Teacher training, attitudes and pressures that are now a part of inclusion are making it difficult for teachers to effectively teach. Altering this by understanding stress variables and reducing the amount of stress by changing the environment and available opportunities for teachers can help to change and implement new opportunities for teachers. However, researchers are now required to find new methods and ways to change the process of teaching for those that are required to have inclusion in the classroom (Forlin, 1996). Another aspect to be considered is the expectations for social interaction in the classroom. Before inclusion became a regulation for classrooms, research defined it as one that was beneficial to those with severe disabilities (Bowe, 2006). However, several gaps have also been noted within the normal classroom, specifically with the social standards and environment that is currently used. The paraprofessionals and assistants within the classroom are known to have a detrimental effect at times, specifically because more attention is required for those with disabilities (Idol, 2006). This creates a boundary with social interactions and doesn’t provide the necessary learning for students with disabilities. Another difference within the integrated setting is based on the gap with social learning by other students in the classroom. While social interactions enhance the understanding of diversity and the social interactions that are a part of the school, students also have negative effects. The pace of learning, expectations in the classroom and the inability to have a restrictive school setting are some of the many aspects that lead to difficulties within the classroom (Carter et al, 2005). To change this, there is the need to evaluate how students with severe disabilities are causing changes among other students in the classroom and how this gap can be closed for better learning capabilities among students (Carter et al, 2005). Another future implication that has to be reexamined with equal opportunity of inclusion is based on the alternative standards for students within the classroom setting. Even though there is a mandate for students to be incorporated into the classroom, the standards for academic achievement have altered (Browder et al, 2005). Alternative assessments for students with disabilities and alternative evaluation of functional skills are still incorporated into the classroom. The main rubric includes progress, level of independence and mastery. However, if students are in a normal classroom setting, there are also different objectives and needs to alter what is in the classroom. The gap with the alternative assessments is in two areas. The first is because of the lack of demand that is placed on those with severe disabilities as opposed to the requirements by students. However, peer group interactions create a demand that both have to learn the same skills and applications (Davis, 2009). The second problem to be reevaluated at this level is based on the teacher pressures to teach different levels and multiple levels of intelligence while having different end assessment forms. Reexamining and altering the policies for inclusion and the academic assessments are now a main requirement for those interested in inclusion. This gap can provide a different objective to assist those that are working toward inclusion of different and diverse individuals (Browder et al, 2005). Conclusion The concept of inclusion in the classroom is one that is continuing to become a main element of those that are in education. The defining of inclusion is one that continues to be a focus and mandate for schools, specifically by providing equal opportunity for all students while assisting with self – esteem, social growth and capabilities within the classroom. However, the new implementation of inclusion has several changes required for schools. Administrative policies and application to inclusion, as well as new ways for teachers to reach demands are changing how teachers work within the classroom (Davis, 2009). This is further being altered by practices that are required for social integration for diversity in the class. For this to work, teachers are reexamining traditional structures of teaching and curriculum while combining social aspects within the classroom (Carter, Hughes, 2006). The result is a change in how teaching practices work within the classroom. However, for this to work, future changes in teaching, classroom environment and expectations for inclusion need to be considered. This will help to redefine full inclusion within the classroom while changing the necessary components of teaching for students within the classroom. For full inclusion to be a part of the educational system is the need to fulfill the gaps within learning while incorporating new levels of understanding for teaching (Devlin, 2005). References Abbott, Suzanne, Roy Mcconkey. (2006). “The Barriers to Social Inclusion as Perceived by People with Intellectual Disabilities.” Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. 10(3). 275-287. Agran, Martin, Sandra Alper, Thomas Sinclair, Michael Wehmeyer, Carolyn Hughes. (2005). “Using Self – Monitoring to Increase Following Direction Skills of Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities in General Education.” Education and Training Developmental Disabilities 40 (1), 3-13. Block, ME, I Obrusnikova. (2005). “Inclusion in Physical Education: A Review of the Literature from 1995-2005.” Adaptation to Physical Activity 24 (2), 103-24. Bowe, Frank. (2006). Making Inclusion Work. New York: Routledge. Brantlinger, Ellen, Robert Jimenez, Janette Klinger, Marleen Pugach, Virginia Richardson. (2005). “Qualitative Studies in Special Education.” Exceptional Children(71) 2-7. Browder, Diane, Lynn Delzell, Claudia Flowers, Meagan Karvonen, Fred Spooner, Robert Algozzine. (2005). “How States Implement Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities: Recommendations for National Policy.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 15(4). 209-220. Carter, Erik, Carolyn Hughes. (2006). “Including High School Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classes: Perspectives of General and Special Educators, Paraprofessionals, and Administrators.” TASH 31(2), 174-185. Carter, Erik, Carolyn Hughes, Carol Guth, Susan Copeland, William Maclean. (2005). “Factors Influencing Social Interaction Among High School Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Their General Education Peers.” American Journal on Mental Retardation 110(5). 366-377. Davis, Tracie. (2009). “General and Special Educators’ Attitudes Toward Students with Severe Disabilities Included in the Regular Education Classroom.” Walden University. Demchak, Mary Ann. (1997). Teaching Students with Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Settings. Washington DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Devlin, Patricia. (2005). “Effects of Continuous Improvement Training on Student Interaction and Engagement.” Research and Practice with Severe Disabilities 30 (2) 47-59. Downing, June. (2006). “On Peer Support, Universal Design, and Access to the Core Curriculum for Students with Severe Disabilities: A Personnel Preparation Perspective.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 31 (4). 327-330. Erwin, Elizabeth, Leslie Soodak. (1995). “I Never Knew I Could Stand Up to the System: Families’ Perspectives on Pursuing Inclusive Education.” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 20(2). 136-146. Flowers, Claudia, Lynn Delzell, Diane Browder, Fred Spooner. (2005). “Teachers’ Perceptions of Alternate Assessments.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 30 (2) 81-92. Foreman, Phil, Michael Kelly, Sue Pascoe, Brian King. (2004). “Evaluating the Educational Experiences of Students with Profound and Multiple Disabilities in Inclusive and Segregated Classroom Settings: an Australian Perspective.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 29 (3). 183-193. Forlin, Chris. (1996). “Inclusion: Is it Stressful for Teachers?” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability. 21(3). 199-217. Giangreco, Michael. (1993). “Using Creative Problem Solving Methods to Include Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classroom Activities.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 4(2). 119-127. Harrower, Joshua. (1999). “Educational Inclusion of Children with Severe Disabilities.” Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 1(4). 215-230. Hawken, Leanne, Robert O’Neill. (2006). “Including Students with Severe Disabilities in All Levels of School – Wide Positive Behavior Support.” Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities31 (1), 46-53. Hunt, Pam. (1996). “Creating Socially Supportive Environments for Fully Included Students Who Experience Multiple Disabilities.” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 21(2). 53-71. Idol, L. (2006). “Toward Inclusion of Special Education Students in General Education.” Remedial and Special Education 27 (2), 77-94. Janney, Rachel. Martha Snell. (1996). “How Teachers Use Peer Interactions to Include Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities in Elementary General Education Classes.” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 21(2). 72-80. Janney, Rachel, Martha Snell. (1997). “How Teachers Include Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities in Elementary Classes: The Means and Meaning of Inclusion.” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 22(3). 159-169. Katz, Jennifer, Pat Mirenda, Stan Auerbach. (2002). “Instructional Strategies and Educational Outcomes for Students with Developmental Disabilities in Inclusive ‘Multiple Intelligences’ and Typical Inclusive Classrooms.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 27(4). 227-238. McConkey, R, S Collins. (2010). “The Role of Support Staff in Promoting the Social Inclusion of Persons with an Intellectual Disability.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 54(8). 691-700. Praisner, Cindy. (2003). “Attitudes of Elementary School Principals Toward the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities.” Exceptional Children (69). 4-12. Sailor, Wayne. (1990). “Policy Implications of Emergent Full Inclusion Models for the Education of Students with Severe Disabilities.” Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 1-67. Sailor, Wayne, Blair Roger. (2005). “Rethinking Inclusion: Schoolwide Applications.” Phi Delta Kappan (86), 127-132. Salend, Spencer, Laurel Duhaney. (1999). “The Impact of Inclusion on Students with and without Disabilities and Their Educators.” Remedial and Special Education 20(2). 114-126. Solner, Alice Udvari. (1996). “Theoretical Influences on the Establishment of Inclusive Practices.” Cambridge Journal of Education 26(1). 27-52. Taylor, Steven. (2001). “Small Group Learning Effects of Including a Student with Intellectual Disabilities; the Continuum and Current Controversies in the USA." Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability. 26(1). 7-21. Theoharis, Julie, Kimber Malmgren. (2005). “Increasing Peer Interactions for Students with Severe Disabilities via Paraprofessional Training.” Exceptional Children (71). 217-225. Read More