Two high schools and the road to full inclusion: A comparison study

Abstract

This article documents a roadmap for developing fully inclusive school sites at the secondary level. Full inclusion is defined as placement in the general education classroom for all students with disabilities. Specifically, two large high schools located in suburban areas attempted to fully include over 300 students identified as needing special services. Students had varying disabilities, but each school attempted to fully include every student. Although one school was an established high school and the other was brand new, both experienced similar benefits and challenges when transitioning to a full inclusion model. This article aims to share specific strategies which contributed to the success of full inclusion at each school site and to discuss challenges that arose during planning and implementation.

Keywords

Full inclusion high schools students with disabilities

High school reform: Integration of special education

Existing educational practices in the United States are not adequately preparing students with disabilities for post-secondary life. Students with disabilities face even greater challenges than their non-disabled counterparts in relation to job preparation and entry into college (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2003). In response to this finding, many secondary schools are implementing high school reform initiatives that may have a large impact on students receiving special education services.

Muller and Burdette (2007) highlighted five recommended best practices in high school education reform. These include: 1) professional development activities for both general education and special education teachers; 2) task forces and workgroups which have representatives from both general education and special education; 3) instructional practices that support students with disabilities; 4) clear expectations of all teachers and students; and 5) appropriate data collection and assessment measures. The integration of general and special education is increasing in the United States and teachers are being asked to work together in order to increase educational opportunities for all learners. Underlying this practice of inclusion and teacher collaboration is the key idea that all learners have varying capabilities and impediments that can benefit from individualized instructional practices (Nussbaum, 2006). By removing barriers students with disabilities encounter in accessing public education with typical peers, society is demonstrating steps toward social justice for people with disabilities (Polat, 2011).

Secondary students with disabilities and inclusion

Historically, students with disabilities in high school settings encounter more obstacles than in prior years when they were in middle school or elementary school settings (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). The high school curriculum places greater emphasis on content area knowledge and, consequently, teachers have the large task of modifying and differentiating materials so they are accessible to students with disabilities. In addition, high school students are expected to utilize independent study skills and complete assignments with little support from classroom teachers; meanwhile, instruction is presented at a much faster pace. Furthermore, high school teachers have been documented as having negative attitudes about including a student with a disability into their classrooms, citing such reasons as having large numbers of students on a caseload, high stakes testing, the high school exit exam, less time for differentiation, and an overall reluctance to modify the curriculum for which they have expertise (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001).

When comparing teaching longevity for special and general educators, special education teachers leave teaching positions at a much higher rate than general education teachers (Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Conroy, 2003). One investigation found a lack of administrative support as the primary cause of the high rates of special education teacher turnover (Gehrke & McCoy, 2007). In fact, administrative support may act as a buffer to teacher stress and attrition, as Otto and Arnold (2005) found that teachers with a supportive administrator were more likely to remain in their teaching position. As attrition among special education teachers rises along with the number of students with disabilities, one may hypothesize that collaboration between general and special education teachers, along with administrative support, may lessen some of the burdens that contribute to special education teacher turnover.

When special education programs were examined for indicators of success, the results found that low teacher stress, professional development opportunities, access to resources, and positive teacher attitudes were positive contributors (Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001). In addition, administrative support and knowledge of special education were the keys to an effective special education program (Praisner, 2003). Miller, Brownell, and Smith (1999) found that an overall positive school climate increased special education teachers’ decisions to stay in special education. Clearly, teachers who felt support from the administration and enjoyed their working environment were more likely to remain in their job.

The importance of administrator support

Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) emphasized the educational leader’s role as being directly responsible for creating a purpose or vision for the school site. Developing people, building capacity, and monitoring policies and regulations are three skills that a successful leader can use to directly influence student achievement. This is especially true for administrators in the role of leading a school in education reform. For example, administrators implementing full inclusion at the high school level are directly responsible for choosing successful co-teaching pairs, communicating the focus of the school, monitoring the co-planning time and numbers of students with disabilities in each general education classroom, and assisting teachers with differentiation of the curriculum (Keefe & Moore, 2004).

Interestingly, teachers who viewed administrators as being emotionally supportive were more satisfied with their jobs than teachers who had low emotional support (Ewy, 2007). Furthermore, administrators who were ‘tuned in’ to the issues students faced had more power in preventing potential problems for students and staff (Guzman, 1997). Administrative involvement clearly has large implications for teacher and student-related issues.

A journey of two schools: Methods for inclusion training

Two schools made the decision to include all students with special needs in the general education environment. In this report, inclusion is defined as placement in the general education classroom for 100 percent of the day for all students with disabilities. One school was an existing campus that had been operating for over 55 years. This school made the determination to transition to a fully inclusive model in a nine-month period. The new school opened in the fall of 2009 as a fully inclusive site. Both schools were located in suburban areas and demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

High school demographics.

	Existing high school	New high school
Years in existence	55	3
Student enrollment	n = 2747	n = 1560
Students in special education	n = 225	n = 116
Teachers (including general and special educators)	n = 130	n = 71
Teachers in special education	n = 13	n = 11

Administrators and teachers worked to reorganize existing procedures such as student schedules and teacher assignments. Professional development centered on key areas supported through the literature and included: 1) inclusion research, 2) strategies for modification and differentiation of instruction, 3) co-teaching models and strategies, and 4) ways to effectively work with students with specific types of disabilities.

Procedures

The authors spent two years in the existing high school supporting the transition to a fully inclusive model. During the same time period, they spent three months conducting professional development before the new high school opened and one year with the special education teacher and general education co-teachers. In both high schools, consistent professional development was held, resources were provided, and in-class supports were provided weekly. Case study methodology was employed with a focus on triangulation research (Denzin, 1978).

The new high school

Before the new high school was opened, the administrative team decided to take an innovative approach and fully include all student groups, including students with disabilities. Potential teachers were interviewed and hired based on their willingness to espouse this model of teaching – that ALL students are OUR students. Before school started in the fall, teachers were given numerous days of professional development that allowed them to focus on team building and increasing their knowledge in all areas of special education.

A total of 36 teachers participated in the professional development training related to serving students with disabilities because that was the number of teachers hired at that time. New teachers that were hired after the initial training met individually with the administrators to receive the training materials. There were 11 special education teachers; eight teachers were credentialed in mild/moderate disabilities and three teachers were credentialed in moderate/severe disabilities. All eight teachers who supported students with mild/moderate disabilities were each assigned to a general education teacher for a co-teaching model. For example, the content area specialist in English would be assigned to one content area specialist in English with certification in mild/moderate disabilities and the two teachers would work together for all six periods per day. They would support up to eight students identified as having special needs per period, but stay together in the same subject all day.

The three teachers certified in moderate/severe disabilities as well as their paraprofessionals were assigned to a team of teachers which included a content area specialist in each subject. Like their neuro-typical peers, the students with moderate/severe disabilities transitioned to different classrooms based on the content area they were studying. The education specialist and paraprofessionals moved with them throughout the day so that they could access the curriculum with modifications. The final two periods of each day focused on a community-based curriculum.

The existing high school

Prior to implementing a full inclusion model, special education at the existing high school segregated students with disabilities in self-contained classroom for content-area instruction with opportunities for ‘mainstreaming’ occurring during electives. Administrators were eager to improve the academic achievement of all students at the school and seek to support them in any way possible. One administrator in particular was assigned to lead special education reform and sought to support all general education and special education teachers. Therefore, due to the special assignment of this administrator, the move to an inclusive high school was a goal that seemed possible so that all students would have the same opportunities for success and access to the standards-based curriculum.

A total of 13 teachers were credentialed in the area of mild/moderate disabilities while two teachers were credentialed in moderate/severe disabilities. Six of the 13 teachers held master’s degrees. Three teachers had been employed by the high school for less than two years whereas 10 of the teachers had been at the school for more than two years. Of the 13 teachers, three indicated extremely negative beliefs about the transition to full inclusion and resisted any change in this direction.

The steps to facilitating the support of all students, but specifically those with disabilities, included professional development, adjusting the master schedule to include classes where teachers could collaborate, and creating curriculum maps, pacing guides, and modified common assessments to guide all instruction. Teachers were given a block of time once a week to work together to modify the subject-specific pacing guides, curriculum and common assessments.

Strategies for building an inclusive high school community

Support and mentoring for all teachers

All of the teachers at the new school and the majority of teachers at the existing high school recognized the value of inclusion and were willing to learn how to successfully work with students with disabilities. The assistant principal assigned to the special education department at the existing high school met with individuals who were less willing to work inclusively and devised a plan where she would have another teacher mentor them on specific strategies of support. Although many of these veteran teachers were not anxious to be ‘mentored’ on inclusion, by the end of the first year, five out of eight of them were working with the special education teachers to support all students placed in their classes. Out of the remaining three teachers, two retired and one continued to resist the idea of inclusion, but received extensive support by the assistant principal. The teachers knew that the principal strongly supported inclusion and they felt that they must agree to participate if they were to be successful at this school site.

The teachers at the new school site worked with a mentor teacher who met with them twice a month to support them in the classroom and answer any questions they had about strategies for success related to full inclusion. Teachers at both school sites will continue to receive support throughout the next year.

Seminars and workshops

Each site participated in a series of comprehensive trainings aimed to increase all teachers’ knowledge. Descriptions of each training course are described in Table 2. All staff at the new high school and selected general education and special education teachers at the existing high school were required to attend the following workshops which were led by the authors: 1) Special Education 101; 2) Inclusion – Beliefs and Expectations; 3) Models of Co-Teaching; 4) Categories of Exceptionality; 5) Collaboration of Paraprofessionals; 6) Student Engagement Strategies; 7) Four Square Writing Strategy; 8) Study Skills Training; 9) Social Skills Curriculum Development; 10) Classroom Support Strategies for All Students; 11) Questioning Techniques; 12) Involvement Strategies; and 13) Successful Differentiation. Each seminar was interactive with a PowerPoint presentation, reflective discussion questions, group activities, and development or adjustment of curriculum in specific subject areas depending on the workshop. The professional development workshops focused on the full inclusion of all students with disabilities.

Table 2.

Training courses and descriptions.

Topic	Description
Special Education 101	This was an introduction to special education with an emphasis on characteristics and strategies for working with students with autism and mild to moderate developmental disabilities as these two disabilities were new to most of the general education teachers.
Inclusion – Beliefs and Expectations	Models of inclusion were presented while the most current research supporting inclusion was highlighted.
Models of Co-Teaching	Collaborative models such as lead/support (one teacher leads the class in a lesson while another teacher supports the lead teacher), alternative or pull aside groups (students that need additional support on a topic are brought to a side area where they are re-taught the content), team teaching (two teachers teach the same lesson together), parallel teaching (two teachers teach content side by side or in the same room – one may modify the material for students in need), and station teaching (students rotate from station to station to learn new chunks of information) were modeled and introduced.
Categories of Exceptionality	The disabilities as recognized by federal law in the United States were covered along with simple modifications for each category.
Collaboration of Paraprofessionals	Teachers participated in the Power of 2 video series by Dr Marilyn Friend which is a comprehensive look at co-teaching as part of the foundation of an inclusive and collaborative school. Six co-teaching models were presented and modeled for immediate implementation into a school setting.
Student Engagement Strategies	Specific strategies such as numbered heads, world café, and the Socratic seminar were practiced by all teachers in the school. Numbered heads is a strategy where each student is held accountable by a small group for learning specific material and then sharing it with the group. World Café is another cooperative grouping strategy which allows students to travel to small tables in a classroom and share their expertise on specific topics. The Socratic seminar is a strategy that encourages open-ended thinking and students are able to generate questions related to specific topics.
Four Square Writing Strategy	Teachers who supported the students in special education in the general education classroom were trained on this specific writing strategy.
Study Skills Training	Specific curriculum was streamlined for all students who needed additional study skills support.
Social Skills Curriculum Development	Training on how to develop an appropriate social skills curriculum for students with mild/moderate and moderate/severe disabilities.
Classroom Support Strategies for All Students	All teachers at the school were trained on specific strategies to support struggling learners in the high school setting.
Questioning Techniques	Appropriate ways to question students with disabilities were covered to maximize student engagement and comfort levels.
Involvement Strategies	All teachers attended professional development training on whole class involvement and how to ensure student understanding of a lesson.
Successful Differentiation	Teachers were trained on how to create differentiated lessons for students with specific needs. Specific disabilities were emphasized such as autism and mild to moderate developmental disabilities.

Materials

All teachers were provided with a small budget to purchase modified materials in order to meet the needs of students with disabilities. After the completion of each training, teachers were provided with materials to implement the learned strategies in an effective manner. Mentor teachers provided ongoing support on how to use the materials for generalization and sustainability.

Co-teaching assignments

In both high schools, teachers and their students were removed from segregated classrooms and placed in general education classrooms with special education teachers acting as collaborative partners with the general education teachers. All teachers were then trained by the district consultants or mentor teachers on strategies to build strong collaborative partnerships. In addition, paraprofessionals were trained to support the general education teachers. A consultant worked with the paraprofessionals on each strategy that was also taught to the teachers. For instance, the paraprofessionals were trained on a specific writing strategy that was adopted school-wide. They were then able to support the teachers and students during content instruction.

Course content modifications

The administrators and general education teachers at both school sites were adamant that the students identified as needing special education services receive the state-mandated content. In order to meet this prerogative, all special education teachers created modifications to the content so that the students with disabilities could be successful in the general education classroom. This included creating modified pacing guides which matched the ones created by the general education teachers in their departments. Common assessments were also modified so the students in special education received shorter tests that contained all of the key content aligned with the state standards.

Initial successes

Students at both high schools who had mild/moderate disabilities regularly stated that they preferred the fully inclusive settings. They enjoyed being with typical peers and felt better about themselves when they were able to participate in everything that students in their grade were involved with. They appreciated having support in the general education classroom and felt more secure since the support teacher or paraprofessional was also helping other students in the class so they did not feel singled out.

In addition, teachers and paraprofessionals at both school sites reported that students with mild/moderate disabilities appeared to work harder when given the challenge of general education. Although the content demands were higher, since the curriculum was modified, students took their classes more seriously when in general education classes. This could be related to the fact that the students with disabilities wanted to appear successful in front of students without disabilities. Overall, students with disabilities were challenged with more demanding curriculum and did make academic gains as reported by the teachers and paraprofessionals at both school sites.

Challenges to building an inclusive community

Both general and special education teachers at each high school found that the more severe the disability, the more difficult it was to include the student. Increased modifications and accommodations for students with moderate–severe disabilities made the general education curriculum less accessible. Therefore, students with moderate–severe disabilities were pulled out more frequently as the year went on for community-based instruction and social skills training at both high schools.

In addition, behaviors of students with moderate–severe disabilities were more disruptive which led to general education teachers being less willing to include those students as the year progressed. Teachers in special education began to spend more time taking the students with behavior problems out of the general education classroom and giving those students more frequent breaks.

One other issue that was discovered was that at the existing high school the paraprofessionals of students with moderate–severe disabilities preferred to assist special education teachers in segregated classrooms. They felt that they had more flexibility and less responsibility than in the general education setting. This was something that the school had to address and discuss with the paraprofessionals. Additional training was given to them when the administration discovered that this might impede their goals of full inclusion at the school site.

Emerging practices

The teachers at both high schools expressed their hope that the successes they had with their students would be adopted by other high schools. The successful outcomes demonstrated at these two high schools have large implications for other school sites interested in including their students with disabilities.

First, the number of students and teachers involved in this project was great, indicating that even a small amount of reorganization could still produce positive results. Schools with fewer numbers of students and teachers may not have to restructure current practices to the extent that the current site did, perhaps making the transition to inclusion easier.

Second, some teachers at the existing high school resisted involvement in the inclusion process, but eventually the majority of this dissenting group became supportive of the project. This finding indicates that educators’ initial negative perceptions about inclusion were not reason to delay or deny inclusive practices at a school site.

Third, a systems-wide approach was employed where school administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals all received supports in order to make an effective transition to inclusion. Rather than mandating inclusion and expecting teachers to implement it, the school site provided the necessary tools to all educators involved in the process so that they were able to enact inclusion and continue receiving supports throughout implementation.

Overall, if two large, suburban schools were able to experience successful outcomes, it seems reasonable that other institutions with lower student numbers, fewer staff members, and more philosophical cohesion toward inclusion would be able to experience similar results.

Conclusion and future research

This article focuses on two high schools that were determined to institutionalize a fully inclusive model. Results after one year of fully inclusive practices have been mostly positive with many challenges that have had to be addressed along the way. Yet, overall, students with disabilities have made gains both academically and socially that would not have been possible had they remained in segregated special education placements. Future research should continue to document secondary schools and the strategies for successful full inclusion.

References

Denzin

N. K.

(1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ewy

C. L.

(2007). The value of administrative behaviors: A comparative study of special education teachers and building administrators in Kansas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(4) (UMI No. 3259311).

Gehrke

R. S.

McCoy

(2007). Considering the context: Differences between the environments of beginning special educators who stay and those who leave. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(3), 32–40.

Gersten

Keating

Yovanoff

Harniss

M. K.

(2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 549–567.

Guzman

(1997). Leadership for successful inclusive schools: A study of principal behaviors. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5), 439–450.

Katsiyannis

Zhang

Conroy

M. A.

(2003). Availability of special education teachers: Trends and issues. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 246–253.

Keefe

E. B.

Moore

(2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 77–89.

Leithwood

Louis

K. S.

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 265–274.

10.

Miller

M. D.

Brownell

M. T.

Smith

S. W.

(1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 201–218.

11.

Muller

Burdette

(2007). High school reform: Integration of special education. In Forum, 1–9.

12.

Nussbaum

(2006). Frontiers for justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

13.

Otto

S. J.

Arnold

(2005). A study of experienced special education teachers’ perceptions of administrative support. College Student Journal, 39(2), 253–259.

14.

Polat

(2011). Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 50–58.

15.

Praisner

C. L.

(2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135–145.

16.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59–74.

17.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Levine

Marder

(2003). Going to school: Instructional contexts, programs, and participation of secondary school students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.