Report of the Inclusion Committee

Submitted Fall 1999

"In this endeavor [building confidence for inclusion] we are limited only by the reach of our collective imagination." (Pugach, 1995)

        The Special Education Integration Task Force Committee was charged by the Department Chair of Curriculum and Instruction, Jerry Peters, in consultation with Dean Haring to develop a model for the incorporation of Special Education content into Curriculum and Instruction courses. This model was conceived broadly by the committee in order to serve as a process or framework for collaboration across preparation programs in both departments of the School of Education. We believe that collaboration and dialogue across preparation programs are critical for the preparation of today’s teachers and administrators; clearly they are defining aspects of our reform initiatives within the SOE.

A Process to Incorporate Special Education Within Curriculum and Instruction Courses

        The current reform initiative regarding inclusive education (sometimes referred to as "next level" or "second generation" inclusion) differs from past reform efforts in its redefinition within the context of the broader school re-structuring movement. While past initiatives were limited attempts to either change special education techniques and strategies or change how and where and by whom services were delivered or add onto approaches already used in general education, inclusion today is about a new vision of what is best for all students. Pugach (1995) describes this "second generation" inclusion as a generative rather than an additive model: "¼ [such] a generative model of inclusion would require complex change and is meant to be a catalyst for transforming the educational enterprise, forcing the production of new knowledge on the part of special and general educators alike from entirely new vantage points. The curriculum is not simply modified but instead is re-designed" (Pugach, 1995, pp.216-217). Inclusive education is about changing the structure of the parallel systems of special education and general education. It is about altogether transforming our thinking regarding how supports can be delivered to students in need and their "typical" peers -- all students. Ferguson (1995) articulated this kind of reinvention from dual systems of education to a unified system quite clearly:

Inclusion isn't about eliminating the continuum of placements or even just about eliminating some locations on the continuum, though that will be one result. Nor is it about discontinuing the services that used to be attached to the various points on the continuum. Instead a more systemic inclusion -- one that merges the reform and restructuring efforts of general education with special education inclusion -- will disassociate the delivery of supports from places and make the full continuum of supports available to the full range of students. Every child should have the opportunity to learn in lots of different places. A more systemic inclusion will replace old practices (which presumed a relationship between ability, service and place of delivery) with new kinds of practice (in which groups of teachers work together to provide learning supports for all students). (p. 285)

        Despite the descriptors or phrases heard from some administrators ("our inclusion program") or teachers (regarding their class enrollment: "I have 22 students plus two inclusion students.") or class members (to a visitor: "You're looking for Mary Jo, the inclusion kid."), inclusion is neither a new special education program, nor a new category for special education services, nor a new reason to think differently about a peer. It is not a place. It does not exist separately or apart from the rest of the school community. Inclusion is not about re-locating services. It is a philosophy of belonging and membership in the school-wide communities that extend from pre-school through the university. The translation of this philosophy into practice can be described as engaging in a process of unification.

Inclusion is a process of meshing general and special education reform initiatives and strategies in order to achieve a unified system of public education that incorporates all children and youths as active, fully participating members of the school community; that views diversity as the norm; and that ensures a high quality education for each student by providing meaningful curriculum, effective teaching, and necessary supports for each student (Ferguson, 1995, p. 286)

        A number of national, state, and local groups have begun to identify the principles and practices that characterize "second-generation" inclusive schools that Pugach has described. Table 1 presents a list of qualities and beliefs held in common by one such group. This group was a state-wide task force in New Hampshire sponsored by a federal restructuring and inclusion grant. It was convened to address two difficult issues: (a) high academic standards and (b) full equity for all students given their diverse learning styles and abilities. While resolution was not achieved on those two issues during the first year of meetings, task force members were able to identify many common values. Generally, inclusive schools are student-centered, democratic, and reflective communities that view diversity as a strength and an opportunity (cf., Brantlinger, 1997; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996).

       There is still disagreement in the field regarding the practical implications of inclusion (e.g., the extent of time spent by a student in a grade-level large group settings when that student is eligible for special education support under the categorical labels "severe disability" or "significant learning disability"); yet, the need for collaboration and shared expertise between what are historically parallel fields of teacher preparation is readily apparent in practicing teacher surveys, in current federal legislation (i.e., the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act referred to as IDEA ’97), and in new national and state standards documents (e.g., National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS}, National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE] Core Standards, Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium [INTASC] Core Standards, and Initial Licensure of Professional Educators in the State of Indiana [IPSB]). Inclusion is not an ephemeral reform idea whose time will soon pass. Consequently, it presents teacher educators with the challenging dilemma of preparing teachers for these inclusive schools even as many of our preparation institutions remain organized as two parallel programs. What are the implications for teacher preparation? How will Schools of Education respond to the apparent need for shared expertise between the two teaching professions that have emerged over the last quarter century?

        This report represents an initial response to this dilemma as it relates to pre-service teacher preparation at Purdue University's School of Education. The urgency regarding the need for a response was noted by the Dean of the School of Education:  

The current situation in K-12 higher education requires an integral (perhaps even symbiotic) relationship between special education and general education in designing curriculum and academic programs and also in delivering instruction...These new working relationships are needed to expedite our doing the following:

1. ensuring collaborative teaching assignments that result in all of our students being instructed by experts in (a) individualized instruction for students with special needs and (b) curriculum and pedagogy in content areas;

2. ensuring that special education majors and specialties meet NCATE, IPSB, INTASC;

3. ensuring that curriculum for elementary, secondary, and social studies prepares teachers to address the needs of diverse learners, consistent with NCATE, IPSB, and INTASC standards (and at the graduate level also consistent with NBPTS) (Haring, September 25, 1998).

     Specifically, this report addresses our committee’s charge to develop a model for incorporating special education perspectives and content within Purdue University’s teacher preparation programs. Based on correspondence between the Dean and the Department Heads, we presume that this model will be reciprocal in nature, that is, also a process for the incorporation of general education perspectives and content into professional preparation programs situated in the Department of Educational Studies.

     Based on the rationale that, indeed, schools are student-centered, democratic, and reflective communities where diversity represents a strength and an opportunity for celebration and in keeping with the collaborative and reflective nature of our teacher preparation programs (as described in our program reform documents and as currently enacted in Block I courses this semester), we have designed a five step process. This process is intended to expand our current dialogue regarding the integration of special education within general education programs. The five steps are as follows:

1. Form Interest Groups to meet in various groupings (by program, by developmental interest, by curricular interest) and discuss questions about beliefs, values and content related to inclusive schools and collaborative teacher preparation;
2. Practice Collaboration by modeling collaboration and inclusive community for our students;
3. Act as Change Agents to facilitate and support the development of inclusive schools locally;
4. Evaluate New Programs using multiple outcomes and multiple methods; and,
5. Assign an Inclusion Facilitator from the special education faculty who can provide support to professional core, "methods," and "content" course instructors in a mutually defined way on a regular basis.

     These steps are explained in detail in the recommendations section of this report (see page nineteen). Our intent in conceptualizing this process was to reflect the spirit of our program reform; that is, the development of educational professionals who are intellectual leaders in a global community—and especially the hallmark expectation that "our graduates be able to teach all students." As stated by Abell, Moon, Hopkins, and Garton Krueger (1997) in the Elementary Reform report, the expectation "That our graduates understand how students differ in their approaches to learning and know how to create instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners." (April, 1997, pp.4-5) And, as articulated by O’Brien, McInerney and Garton-Krueger (1997), we will "educate professionals who can teach students from a wide range of backgrounds with diverse educational needs so that they may become active contributing citizens upon graduation from high school (Reformed Core Secondary Education Program Report, August, 1997, p. 2)

     The remainder of this report is divided into four parts: (a) a brief discussion of the interrelationships among "guiding principles in practice," relevant standards, and relevant pre-service teacher performance outcomes; (b) some ideas for the integration of special education content within the reformed programs; (c) our recommendations for an ongoing process for collaboration across programs and departments, and (d) the formative evaluation of our work.

     Because the Interstate New Teacher Assessment Support Consortium (INTASC) and Initial Licensure of Professional Educators of the State of Indiana core and content area standards are interrelated, they cannot be assessed – and are not intended to be assessed -- as isolated skills or singular markers. Rather, evidence regarding each standard and its identified knowledge, performance, and disposition markers must be gathered across representative tasks that reflect the interplay of several standards. This integrated approach also applies to the evaluation of Indiana’s beginning teacher portfolios. Rather than being assigned a single score for each principle, portfolios are evaluated according to the continual interplay among the principles in real-life teaching situations. 

        For each Initial Licensure content area, the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) is piloting its own particular assessment framework to capture an integrated perspective of the standards assessment. For example, the English and Language Arts content area relies upon "guiding questions" about the content, learner, instruction, and reflection. The mathematics content group, on the other hand, uses five categories for its evaluation framework -- mathematical tasks, mathematical discourse, learning environment, analysis of learning, and analysis of teaching. While each content area differs somewhat, all evaluation frameworks are based upon the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. For the purposes of this report, we adopted the guiding principles framework reflected in the Purdue University School of Education Portfolio Committee Report (August, 1999). This framework incorporated three "Guiding Principles in Practice." These three principles are: attention to learners, understanding the curriculum in context, and reflective practice and professional development. The interrelationship among these Guiding Principles, the INTASC standards, IPSB standards, NCATE standards, and standards developed by one special education professional organization (the Council for Exceptional Children or CEC) are represented in Appendix A.

     In the course of our committee work, we identified a list of overarching concerns regarding the integration of special education content within general education preparation. Based upon our review of current standards and our knowledge of inclusive education and teacher preparation, we believe that these are concerns that must be thoughtfully addressed and incorporated across the Purdue University teacher preparation programs in elementary, secondary, and special education. As a committee we found it useful to consider these concerns as each intersects with the Guiding Principles framework presented in the Portfolio Task Force and Secondary Task Force reports. Separate from the knowledge, disposition, and performance markers delineated in the INTASC core standards, we also generated our own list of pre-service teacher performance outcomes. In part, this list reflects what INTASC and the IPSB have already noted as minimal indicators. It also represents our attempt to not only comply with state and national standards but to move beyond what state and national boards would require of beginning teachers. The results of this process appear in Table 3. Each concern is discussed briefly in the following narrative under one of three Guiding Principles in Practice.

Principle #1, Attention to students. [How do the learning experiences address diverse student development and interest?] According to INTASC portfolio handbooks (being piloted currently in Indiana as well as several other states), this Guiding Principle in Practice is intended to address how the teacher accommodates and provides opportunities for all students to learn and develop. At least two overarching concerns are related to this guiding principle. First, our obligation to students is to focus upon a celebration of difference rather than strategies for separation based on difference, that is, "tracking, "sorting," or "labeling." Second, it will be critical for students to understand from historical and sociological perspectives the definitions that have provided the basis for educational sorting. For example, students will consider current problematic issues in the identification of children and youth for special education services such as the overrepresentation of minority and poor children. Important definitions to address include: intelligence, ability and disability, minority status, and socioeconomic status. In contrast to a traditional focus on difference as deficit, students will consider ways in which their own idiosyncratic and cultural identities and those of the children and youth they meet can be viewed positively -- how an understanding of one’s own micro-culture might inform one’s understanding of another’s. Students will gain an appreciation for the diversity that any one class of children and youth can represent in terms of race, religion, ethnicity, geography, gender, family structure, age, abilities, and interests.

Principle #2, Understanding curriculum in context. [What are the connections among the learning experiences?] Portfolio assessment designers suggested that beginning teachers use this guiding question or principle to focus on how they see the school as part of a larger community and the factors that influence the school environment. We identified four overarching concerns related to this guiding principle. These are: creating classroom community and focusing on a new or re-conceptualization of citizenship (cf., Sapon-Shevin, 1999); understanding the culture of the school (cf., Finders, 1997); given the general education curriculum as the starting point, expanding the curriculum to address its functionality with respect to the community and daily life for all students; and, emphasizing the resulting connections with the rest of the world. If we understand the purpose of schooling to be learning that results in becoming active participating members of the community -- that it is the responsibility of schools to ensure that students become socially embedded in their communities so that others will look out for their well-being -- then the connections between what happens at school and what happens in the community become clear. Whatever happens at school must be applicable to students’ daily lives. This way of thinking about schooling also leads us to appreciate that what happens at school must enhance how "others see us" – adults at school are responsible not only for academic learning but also for students’ social and emotional development, their connections with others (Ferguson & Jeanchild, 1992).

Principle #3, Reflective practice and Professional Development. [How does the teacher enact the role of the professional?] As described in portfolio assessments, this question is intended to capture (a) the ways in which the beginning teacher demonstrates a professional manner with colleagues, students, and parents as well as (b) her commitment to ongoing reflective learning and assessment and (c) her skills in consulting with others about the education and well-being of her students. Our particular overarching concerns that fit under this umbrella are three. First, we believe that to implement and model inclusive schooling, our program must emphasize a teacher’s knowledge of the cultural and personal perspective and intentional or unintended bias that she brings – understanding how she is situated within a micro-culture as well as identifying idiosyncratic understandings and beliefs. Second, our program must thoughtfully promote pre-service teachers’ responsibility for change emphasizing their role as social change agents for all children and in particular for those children and youth who are disenfranchised by traditional notions of sorting and tracking. And, third, a significant aspect of professional growth must attend to not consultation alone, but also collaborative teaming skills and building community for the grown-ups; that is, pre-service teachers will demonstrate the supportive stance required to implement promising practices for students with and without identified disabilities and facilitate the participation of colleagues, families and members of the community.

Table 3

Overarching Concerns and Pre-Service Teacher Performance Outcomes by Guiding Principles.

Guiding Principle Overarching Concerns Pre-service Teacher Performance Outcomes

• Attention to Students Celebrating differences rather than Demonstrate skills and attitudes needed to work with all students
• "tracking"/sorting/labeling Understand why and how schools label children (advantages and disadvantages for service delivery)
• Definitions of intelligence, ability Personal experience/relationship with a student who has an identified and disability or ability

• Use appropriate/respectful/child-centered language
• Create and implement assessments to identify student strengths
• Identify diverse student characteristics (race, ethnicity, gender, class, religion, geographic identity, ability, talent)
• Design and implement activities that celebrate student diversity
• Evaluate individual student performance using various types of assessment
• Observe and compare routines of students who are identified and not identified for support
• Observe students using assistive technology
• Identify and define direct instruction strategies (e.g., prompts, task analysis, feedback)
• Explain how and when direct instruction may be useful for a particular student

• Describe and practice first-aid for medical emergencies (e.g., seizures)
• Describe and explain the purpose of an IEP
• Explain and demonstrate the purposes of individual and group assessment, making clear the link with curriculum and instruction
• Explain and demonstrate functional assessment
• Design, implement and evaluate a thematic unit plan including personal supports and accommodations for students with identified needs
• Design, implement, and evaluate a lesson that incorporates multi-level/differentiated instruction
• Explain and demonstrate the purposes of individual and group assessment, making clear the link with curriculum and instruction

• Explain and demonstrate functional assessment
• Design, implement and evaluate a thematic unit plan including personal supports and accommodations for students with identified needs
• Design, implement, and evaluate a lesson that incorporates multi-level/differentiated instruction
• Design an IEP
• Understanding Curriculum Classroom as community 
• Identify purposes of assistive technology to support student learning in Context a new kind of citizenship 
• Design lessons incorporating adaptations for students who use assistive technology

• Expanding the general curriculum Critique media and literature for handicapist attitudes for all students
• Identify exemplars and non-exemplars of functional generalizable individual student objectives
• Connecting with the rest of the Identify, adapt and implement democratic classroom structures world
• Design ways to include parents in the curriculum

• Know and implement laws and regulations related to special education
• Culture of the school (e.g., IDEA, ADA, Sec 504, Chapter 1, Gifted and talented State Regulations)

• Identify and visit alternative educational programs (e.g., Lafayette Adult Reading Academy, the New Community School, the Atlas School)

• Professional Development What the teacher brings -- her 
• Analyze how knowledge of self affects relationships with students and Reflective Practice individual identity, his micro-cultures (cultural pie, authentic voice book review)
• Interview practicing teachers, administrator, support personnel, and
• Teacher as social change agents building staff re what, how, why service delivery for students with
• Collaboration – building identified needs (e.g., OT or PT or SLP re positioning, switches, or community for the grown-ups touch screens)

• Work with media specialist re technology products (school-based or university-based
• Engage in collaborative assignments and/or teaching experience with special education colleague
• Understand and demonstrate various co-teaching strategies
• Identify how to work collaboratively with para-professionals
• Observe, engage in and critique group problem-solving process
• Describe and demonstrate ethical behavior
• Develop professional networks with special education colleagues
• Become familiar with professional and advocacy organizations who support students with identified disabilities and their families (e.g., ASHA, CEC, TASH, …) and their key documents
• Identify local state and national support networks (e.g., Inclusive Schools Consortium, state-wide systems change projects, disability centered University Affiliated Programs)
• Review and critique related web sites
• Use resource libraries

  ---

     This section addresses the question of integration or infusion; that is, given the current teacher preparation program, how special education can be integrated into the new programs. We reviewed the reform documents and course proposals and generated additional ideas that could facilitate the integration of special education content based on existing documents. Our comments are organized according to the identified Blocks and Secondary Program structure. In generating these ideas, we considered the new roles required of general education teachers with the implementation of IDEA '97, that is, the general education teacher as responsible for all students assigned to her class, a participating member of IEP teams, and a collaborative colleague with program specialists (Turnbull, et al, 1999). These ideas are delineated in Table 4.

Table 4

Ideas for Incorporating Special Education Content into General Education Teacher Preparation by Professional Semester Blocks/Program Divisions.

• Include consideration of learning styles and ways of discovering and nurturing abilities.
• Address legal bases of education including at least two court cases related to special education (e.g., Rowley and Daniel R.R.).
• Emphasize consideration of new roles for general educators outlined in IDEA '97 -- as participating and collaborative members of IEP teams.
• Include consideration of pre-service teachers as members of cultural groups -- facilitating their movement from personal experience, values, and beliefs to an appreciation of their students' experiences. Who are we as teachers? How do our own histories shape our view of students and education? In line with the new philosophy of the elementary program, "pre-service teachers will begin by reflecting on themselves as teachers and learners¼ as students engaged in a reflective process to make sense of teaching and learning." (pp.5-6)
• Define multicultural as dealing with race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, and ability/disability.
• Emphasize teachers as agents for social change. For example, teachers "promote strength and value of cultural diversity, promote human rights and respect for those who are different from oneself promote alternative life styles promote social justice and equal opportunity for all people promote equity in the distribution of power among groups" (Sleeter & Grant, 1994).
• Include consideration of whose voices are currently represented and whose should be represented in the curriculum? Rather than placing the focus on strategies peculiar to groups of children, place the focus on expanding the curriculum so that concepts are "organized around contributions and perspectives of several different groups. Teach critical thinking and analysis of alternative viewpoints, make curriculum relevant to student's experiential background, promote use of more than one language" (Sleeter & Grant, 1994, p.171).

Professional Block II Course Content

• Emphasize learning and motivation as it applies to all children, that is, include whatever might have been excluded with an emphasis on children as unique learners; model the integration of knowledge.
• Include a child/youth with a disability as one of selected case studies.
• include all categories of disability [one category that is particularly relevant to general educators is "other health impairments" (children with HIV, diabetes, or asthma)],
• Address methods/strategies in the subject area courses offered in Blocks III and IV
• Design a field experience in which students can develop a personal relationship with a school-age child who has been identified for categorical support in order to dispel stereotypes created by categorical presentation [We might approach local respite agencies and existing after-school or tutoring programs for this experience.]
• Present the rationale for a unified system of education
• Emphasize consideration of teaching environments and strategies for a wide range of students -- community building strategies, large and small group interactive strategies (e.g., structured learning activities such as jigsaw, numbered heads together, or cooperative learning groups), and instructional strategies (multi-level instruction, thematic instruction, models for individual curricular changes)
• Address collaborative roles for teachers (co-teaching, IEP team membership, teacher assistance teams, working with families, and community networks)
• Have two instructors co-teach for all classes demonstrating different co-teaching models
• Invite speakers who have disabilities to be guest speakers
• Use case studies of students identified under high incidence and low incidence categories. One case study should be a student who uses an alternative to vocal communication.

• For all subject matter courses, expand presentation of content to include case studies of students with disabilities, giftedness," or "at risk" as well as "typical" students to illustrate how strategies apply to all students.
• Include integration of large and small group interaction strategies and inclusive instructional strategies (multi-level instruction, thematic instruction, decision-making models for individual adaptations).

• Include community-building strategies
• Emphasize the importance of student self-esteem -learning to care about oneself, then others
• Address social skills and problem solving strategies (including conflict resolution and other alternatives to violence).
• Revise title of the Classroom Management course to reflect a focus on the classroom as a community.
• Make connections from other courses on "learning and motivation" explicit in these related courses.
• Include general education faculty in course development - as well as practicing teachers in both course development and class sessions.
• Place as many pre-service teachers as possible in inclusive classroom settings
• Require participation on IEP teams and collaborative planning teams as part of the student teaching experience

  ---

           In addition to this copy presentation of ideas and recommendations, the faculty, staff and students can also access these and additional resources at a new web site designed by the Special Education Integration Task Force Committee. The home page provides access to an electronic copy of this document with links to related sites fixed within the text of the report. For example, when the reader of this document encounters the phrase "Individuals with Disabilities Act" (see this document, page four) and would like then to review the current law, a link to the IDEA homepage on the web site of the US Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) is provided at that point in the narrative. Another web page is devoted to case studies of students with identified disabilities or abilities and talents that may be useful in demonstrating how the content area curriculum can be expanded to include all students. Another page provides examples of lesson plans that incorporate a process for adapting and expanding general lessons for individual learners. The site will be revised periodically over the course of each semester.

        Overall, we recommend that the infusion of "special education" be addressed from a "second generation" inclusion perspective. Rather than regarding students with special needs as a separate phenomenon which requires a special lecture day devoted "just to them," the concept of individual unique learners must be integrated throughout course content by identifying intensive instruction or adaptation as a usual part of instruction and assessment. It is critical to avoid the characterization that "there are different methods that you use with the different kids -- the kids who don't fit, the LD kids or ADHD kids or gifted kids." Inclusion is not just for "those eligible." Inclusion is for everyone. It is not exclusive to students who are identified for support under high incidence special education categories (e.g., specific learning disability or mild mental retardation). Inclusive schooling was brought to the field's attention by people who advocate for students with severe disabilities and students who make up low incidence categories. These students are also a part of this conversation.

        It is important to note that missing from the current descriptions of required courses is any content addressing the new role for general educators required by IDEA '97 ¾ that is, their role as participating IEP team members and as collaborative colleagues with special education personnel (teachers, teaching assistants, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists) as well as other general educators. Collaboration is clearly a hallmark of the Purdue teacher preparation programs, but we cannot assume it will happen without planned opportunities within and across courses to examine the knowledge base and practice skills necessary for effective teaming (Friend & Cook, 1996; Pugach and Johnson, 1995; Villa and Thousand, 1999). The SOE’s new "course proposal framework" does require planned collaborative instruction and student work in its theory into practice component. This presents one obvious place in which we could initiate attention to this content.

    In order to make the kinds of program revision required to best prepare pre-service teachers for inclusive classrooms and in line with the Dean's appeal for dialogue around changes in departmental structures, we make the following five recommendations to the SOE:

1. Form Interest Groups to meet in various groupings (by program, by developmental interest, by curricular interest) and discuss questions about beliefs, values and content related to inclusive schools and collaborative teacher preparation;
2. Practice Collaboration by modeling collaboration and inclusive community for our students;
3. Act as Change Agents to facilitate and support the development of inclusive schools locally;
4. Evaluate New Programs using multiple outcomes and multiple methods; and,
5. Assign an Inclusion Facilitator from the special education faculty who can provide support to professional core, "methods," and "content" course instructors in a mutually defined way on a regular basis.

        We recommend that the Faculty of the School of Education initiate an ongoing conversation about the hard questions. The format and time frame for such a dialogue may be constrained by various deadlines outside the control of the faculty. This may require identifying new discussion groups within and across departments, within and across program areas, within and across developmental levels, or by interest and expertise -- or it may mean relying upon existing committee structures. It may mean that some things must be moved along with less discussion than others. Because a great deal of time and energy has already been expended by the elementary and secondary reform committees, these groups or the Accountability Team may be the logical forum for designing such a dialogue format. Possible topics for discussion include:

• What are our values and beliefs about students?
• What are our philosophies about teaching and learning?

• What is inclusion for all students?

1. How do we define special education?
2. Is diversity an appropriate umbrella for special education? (Pugach & Griffin, 1997)

• What are the implication of 3 and 4 and 5 on program-identified learning outcomes for program graduates?
• What are the implications of 3 and 4 on state certifications offered at the graduate and undergraduate levels?
• What is our mission and how is inclusion expressed within that framework (inclusion, social justice, reform) ¾ what makes Purdue unique within Indiana or across the Midwest/US?

        The committee further recommends that within the SOE, the faculty and staff emphasize through modeling a reliance upon collaborative structures that demonstrate what it means to be a part of a collaborative and inclusive community. We might discuss openly our values and beliefs about teaching and learning and about general and special education in particular. Faculty can continue to identify various ways to engage in co-teaching including team teaching with colleagues at the university and at local community schools. Course instructors might emphasize and/or expand the use of collaborative structures with students both in the design and implementation of course instruction and assignments including the use of technological means. Faculty and staff might highlight for students and colleagues ways in which they already work collaboratively with local schools and community agencies and expand those efforts in support of inclusive schools. As well, continue to use processes such as the "Beanery summits" to elicit participation and solicit ideas from school-based colleagues.

        The committee recommends that the SOE in the person of its faculty and staff act as social change agents in facilitating and supporting the development of inclusive schools in local school communities. It will be important for interested parties to determine the needs and interests of the local schools, identify and provide or facilitate access to necessary resources, and create mutual inquiry projects around questions about inclusion.

        How will we "document growth in attitudes, beliefs, values, knowledge, skill and socialization into the profession and assess these indicators in ways that can help us improve our programs?" (Griffin & Pugach , 1996) It will be critically important to evaluate our teacher preparation programs based on traditional indicators of graduate performance in the field and graduate perception as well as to identify new outcomes using multiple measures that better inform meaningful program change. Pre-service teacher exit portfolios might be one such measure, in addition to feedback from course instructors, with special attention to the diversity strand implementation criteria. Related to changes in course content and implementation, it would be important to understand what supports and resources (e.g., the task force web site or the inclusion facilitator) the instructors found to be most useful. Formative and summative information from instructors engaged in co-teaching can be a significant source of information for those who may want to initiate such an endeavor. Participatory research methods could provide an especially appropriate approach for the identification of significant and socially and educationally valid indicators of success and for the design of methods to assess those outcomes and interpret results.

    The recommendation to assign a special education faculty member to collaborate with professional core, "methods," and pedagogical content course instructors could be one way to ensure support for our Task Force recommendations. The allocation of .25 FTE (the equivalent of one course load) would indicate administrative support for this effort in terms of person resources. It is our expectation that this role will evolve over time. At least five tasks appear critical at this juncture in program development and over the next two years:

• Developing models for co-teaching in particular "methods" courses with interested instructors;

• Facilitating interest group discussions;
• Managing the web site and other material resources;
• Meeting with program area faculty to determine any specific program area needs; and
• Assuming leadership for program evaluation with respect to the diversity strand and the integration of special education into general education programs.

---

Evaluating Our Progress

        In order to evaluate this five-step process, the committee recommends using the Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) (Provus, 1971).   According to this evaluation model, the project staff (in this case the inclusion facilitators) are responsible for establishing a program design that (a) describes the specific project activities which should enable accomplishment of program objectives, and (b) delineates these activities in a timeline format. An outside monitor then evaluates the accomplishment of objectives according to the projected timeline. Any discrepancies that occur between the program standard (i.e., the timeline) and actual project staff performance are identified and resolved by modification of either the program operation or the program standard. A projected timeline of activities by months across one academic year is presented in Figure 1. If these recommendations are implemented, the task force committee assumes that the role of inclusion facilitator would be the responsibility of the jointly appointed special education faculty. The leadership team may have particular recommendations regarding the appointment of an outside evaluator or prefer other models for program evaluation. The Special Education Integration Committee members wish simply to emphasize the critical importance of evaluation in moving forward with our "collective imagination."

References

    Blanton, L.P., Griffin, C.C., Winn, J.A., and Pugach, M.C. (Eds.)(1997). Collaborative programs to prepare general and special education teachers. Denver: Love Publishing.

    Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burn-out: social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Ferguson, D.L. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a "rabid inclusionist." Phi Delta Kappan,77, pp.281-287.

    Ferguson, D.L. & Jeanchild, L.A. (1992). It’s not a matter of method. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students (pp. 159-174). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Finders, M. (1997). Just girls, Hidden life in middle school : Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Fisher, D., Sax, C., & Jorgensen, C.M. (1998). Philosophical foundations of inclusive restructuring schools. In C.M. Jorgensen, Restructuring high schools for all students (pp.29- 470. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Fried, R.L. and Jorgensen, C.M. (1998). Equity and excellence: Finding common ground between inclusive education and school reform. In C.M. Jorgensen, Restructuring high schools for all student, (pp. 15-28). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1996). Interactions. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing.

    Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform, Transforming aspects of America's classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Provus, M.M. (1971). Discrepancy evaluation for educational program improvement and assessment. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

    Pugach, M.C. (1995). On the failure of imagination in inclusive schooling. Journal of Special Education, 29, 212-223.

    Pugach, M. & Johnson, L. (1996). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

    Roach, V. (1997). Foreword. In C.M. Jorgensen, Restructuring high schools for all students, (pp. xvii). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Turnbull, A, Turnbull, R. Shank, M., Leal, D. (1999). Exceptional Lives, Special education in today's schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Villa, R.A. & Thousand, J. S. (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Timeline of Objectives and Major Activities by Calendar Months

Figure 1.  A projected timeline of identified goals and objectives by months in first academic year

Appendix