NASP Position Statement - Inclusive Programs for Students With Disabilities

Position Statement on Inclusive Programs for Students With Disabilities

The 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97) created significant educational opportunities for students with disabilities and established important safeguards that ensure the provision of a free, appropriate public education to students with special needs. NASP strongly supports the continuation and strengthening of this mandate. NASP also recognizes the need to continually evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of our educational system and to promote reform when needed.

A Call for Inclusive Schools

NASP, in its continuing commitment to promote more effective educational programs for all students, advocates the development of inclusive programs for students with disabilities. Inclusive programs are those in which students, regardless of the severity of their disability, receive appropriate specialized instruction and related services within an age appropriate general education classroom in the school that they would attend if they did not have a disability. NASP believes that carefully designed inclusive programs individualized to meet the needs of students with disabilities represent a viable and legitimate option on the special education continuum that must be examined for any student who requires special education. Inclusive education is within the continuum of special education services, and must be based upon the individual needs, goals, and objectives determined by IEP teams.

Potential Benefits

Some of the benefits of inclusive programs include:

typical peers serving as models for students with disabilities;
the development of natural friendships within the child’s home community;
learning new academic and social skills within natural environments, facilitating generalization of skills;
students with disabilities existing in “natural” proportions within the school community;
all students learning to value diversity; and
general education classrooms that are better able to meet the needs of all students as a result of additional instructional resources, staff development for general and special educators, a more flexible curriculum, and adapted instructional delivery systems.

Developing Inclusive Programs

In advocating for the development of these programs, NASP takes the position that:

Inclusive programs must provide all the services needed to ensure that students make consistent social, emotional, and academic gains.
General education teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, other related services providers, and parents must collaborate to ensure appropriate services for all students and to ensure that all programs are based upon a careful analysis of each student’s needs. Decisions regarding services must be made on an individual child basis.
Outcome-based data on inclusive programs must be collected to ensure that students with and without disabilities are making consistent educational progress. Ongoing empirical examination and further research are needed.
All educators and administrators involved in implementing inclusive programs must participate in planning and training activities. When developing inclusive programs, adults with disabilities serving as experts and/or advocates, in addition to the students themselves, need to be included as much as possible.
Knowledge and skills in effective collaboration, curriculum adaptation, developing supportive social relationships, and restructuring special services are but a few of the areas in which skills are needed.
Preservice and inservice training based upon the needs of the staff involved in planning these programs is essential. The active involvement of general educators and administrators in staff development is critical for successful inclusion.
School districts with limited resources may have difficulty meeting the needs of all students, particularly those with low incidence or severe disabilities. It may be necessary to provide planning and training for the provision of reasonable accommodations to students with low incidence or severe disabilities attending their neighborhood schools.

The Role of the School Psychologist

School psychologists can provide effective leadership in the development of inclusive programs. School psychologists have training and experience in collaborative consultation, behavioral and academic intervention design, curriculum adaptation, modification of learning environments, program evaluation, peer mediated learning, facilitating friendships, and other issues critical to effective inclusive programs. Because of this expertise, school psychologists are in a unique position to assist schools in assessing student needs, reallocating existing resources, and restructuring service delivery systems to better meet the educational and mental health needs of all students. School psychologists can foster the development of inclusive schools by:

gathering and providing information regarding the strengths and needs of individual students;
providing meaningful support and consultation to teachers and other educators implementing inclusive programs;
distributing articles and research to fellow educators and district committees responsible for educational restructuring;
leading or serving as members of groups that are evaluating or restructuring education programs;
planning and conducting staff development programs that support inclusion;
offering training and support to teachers, students and families;
developing new resources through grant writing and collaboration with other community agencies, and other activities;
providing information on needed changes to legislators and state and federal policy-makers; and,
collecting and analyzing program evaluation and outcome based research.

Concerns Regarding the Traditional Special Education System

Certain aspects of traditional special education include a number of problems that create unintended negative outcomes for students:

A referral and evaluation system that does not function as originally intended. Some of the weaknesses of this system include:

Over reliance upon a classification system of disability categories that lacks utility and reliability for this purpose, and lacks acceptance by many parents and professionals.
A lack of empirical research showing that students with mild disabilities grouped by category learn differently or are taught differently.

Inequities in implementation of the least restrictive environment and access to general education curriculum provisions of IDEA 97. Data suggest that the restrictiveness of many special education placements is not based upon the severity of students’ disabilities, but may instead result from the configuration of the service delivery system that is available in the community.
Concerns that traditional special education programs are not effective in terms of learner outcomes.
Overly restrictive special education programs housed in separate schools or “cluster” sites that result in social segregation and disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities being grouped together. For example, some students, especially those with more severe disabilities, must attend separate schools to receive special services, rather than being provided appropriate services in his/her neighborhood school. Many parents and professionals feel that it is inherently inequitable that some students must leave their neighborhood schools and communities to receive appropriate services. Although neighborhood schools may be the best decision for most students, decisions must be made on an individual basis.

Changing our Schools

NASP recognizes that the traditional framework of special education policies and regulations is often incompatible with inclusive programs. Consequently, NASP joins with the National Association of State Boards of Education in calling for a fundamental shift in the policies which drive our compensatory education system. Changes are suggested in:

The system used to identify and evaluate students with special needs. This should be made more reliable and less stigmatizing. Noncategorical services (Rights without labels) may be appropriate for inclusive education.
The traditional special education funding system. The link between funding and placements must be severed. Many aspects of the funding system are driven by labels and program locations rather than by student needs. Special education funding systems must be based on the provision of services to students and not on the maintenance of programs, facilities, personnel, etc.
School improvement planning. School improvement /restructuring plans must include students with disabilities. The integration of general and special education issues must be reflected in building and district level improvement plans. This requires collaboration and staff development for both general and special educators in order to address the needs of all students.
NASP recognizes that the shift toward more inclusive schools will require profound changes in the ways in which schools are organized. We are committed to working with parents, other professional groups, and state and national policy-makers in creating new funding and regulatory mechanisms that promote effective programs within neighborhood schools and ensure that students with special needs continue to receive appropriate resources. We endorse a process of planned change that involves all stakeholders in research, planning, and training to ensure that our nation’s schools can attain excellence for all of our children.

References

Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg H.J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35.

Falvey, M.A. (Ed.). (1995). Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling. Assessment, curriculum, and instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1995). Winning ways: Creating inclusive schools, classrooms, and communities. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY). (1995) The national study of inclusive education. New York: National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York.

Rogers, J. (1993) The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin, no. 11. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research.

Salisbury, C.L., Pumpian, I., Fisher, D., Roach,V., & McGregor, G. (1995). A framework for evaluating state and local policies for inclusion. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices.[On-line]. Available: http://www.icdi.wvu.edu/others.htm#g10

Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Staub, D. & Peck, C.A. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-40.

Thompkins, R. & Deloney, P. (1995) Inclusion: The pros and cons. Issues About Change, 4, 3. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Waldron, N.L. (1997). Inclusion. In G.G. Bear, K.M. Minke, & A.Thomas (Eds.), Children’s needs II: Development, problems and alternatives. Bethesda,MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

- Adopted by the NASP Delegate Assembly, 1993

- Revision adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, April 1, 2000

Please note that NASP periodically revises its Position Statements. We encourage you to check the NASP website at www.nasponline.org to ensure that you have the most current version of this Position Statement.


The NASP website will be unavailable on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 from 5pm to 8pm while we perform scheduled maintenance and upgrades. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience.
About School Psychology About NASP NASP's Mission Position Statements NASP Leadership NASP Calendar Awards & Grants Interest Groups IRS 990 Forms State Associations NASP Staff Employment at NASP Membership Professional Standards and Training Continuing Professional Development National Certification Conventions Communications / Media Advocacy / Public Policy Resource Library Career Center Publications / Store Communities	Position Statement on Inclusive Programs for Students With Disabilities The 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97) created significant educational opportunities for students with disabilities and established important safeguards that ensure the provision of a free, appropriate public education to students with special needs. NASP strongly supports the continuation and strengthening of this mandate. NASP also recognizes the need to continually evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of our educational system and to promote reform when needed. A Call for Inclusive Schools NASP, in its continuing commitment to promote more effective educational programs for all students, advocates the development of inclusive programs for students with disabilities. Inclusive programs are those in which students, regardless of the severity of their disability, receive appropriate specialized instruction and related services within an age appropriate general education classroom in the school that they would attend if they did not have a disability. NASP believes that carefully designed inclusive programs individualized to meet the needs of students with disabilities represent a viable and legitimate option on the special education continuum that must be examined for any student who requires special education. Inclusive education is within the continuum of special education services, and must be based upon the individual needs, goals, and objectives determined by IEP teams. Potential Benefits Some of the benefits of inclusive programs include: typical peers serving as models for students with disabilities; the development of natural friendships within the child’s home community; learning new academic and social skills within natural environments, facilitating generalization of skills; students with disabilities existing in “natural” proportions within the school community; all students learning to value diversity; and general education classrooms that are better able to meet the needs of all students as a result of additional instructional resources, staff development for general and special educators, a more flexible curriculum, and adapted instructional delivery systems. Developing Inclusive Programs In advocating for the development of these programs, NASP takes the position that: Inclusive programs must provide all the services needed to ensure that students make consistent social, emotional, and academic gains. General education teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, other related services providers, and parents must collaborate to ensure appropriate services for all students and to ensure that all programs are based upon a careful analysis of each student’s needs. Decisions regarding services must be made on an individual child basis. Outcome-based data on inclusive programs must be collected to ensure that students with and without disabilities are making consistent educational progress. Ongoing empirical examination and further research are needed. All educators and administrators involved in implementing inclusive programs must participate in planning and training activities. When developing inclusive programs, adults with disabilities serving as experts and/or advocates, in addition to the students themselves, need to be included as much as possible. Knowledge and skills in effective collaboration, curriculum adaptation, developing supportive social relationships, and restructuring special services are but a few of the areas in which skills are needed. Preservice and inservice training based upon the needs of the staff involved in planning these programs is essential. The active involvement of general educators and administrators in staff development is critical for successful inclusion. School districts with limited resources may have difficulty meeting the needs of all students, particularly those with low incidence or severe disabilities. It may be necessary to provide planning and training for the provision of reasonable accommodations to students with low incidence or severe disabilities attending their neighborhood schools. The Role of the School Psychologist School psychologists can provide effective leadership in the development of inclusive programs. School psychologists have training and experience in collaborative consultation, behavioral and academic intervention design, curriculum adaptation, modification of learning environments, program evaluation, peer mediated learning, facilitating friendships, and other issues critical to effective inclusive programs. Because of this expertise, school psychologists are in a unique position to assist schools in assessing student needs, reallocating existing resources, and restructuring service delivery systems to better meet the educational and mental health needs of all students. School psychologists can foster the development of inclusive schools by: gathering and providing information regarding the strengths and needs of individual students; providing meaningful support and consultation to teachers and other educators implementing inclusive programs; distributing articles and research to fellow educators and district committees responsible for educational restructuring; leading or serving as members of groups that are evaluating or restructuring education programs; planning and conducting staff development programs that support inclusion; offering training and support to teachers, students and families; developing new resources through grant writing and collaboration with other community agencies, and other activities; providing information on needed changes to legislators and state and federal policy-makers; and, collecting and analyzing program evaluation and outcome based research. Concerns Regarding the Traditional Special Education System Certain aspects of traditional special education include a number of problems that create unintended negative outcomes for students: A referral and evaluation system that does not function as originally intended. Some of the weaknesses of this system include: Over reliance upon a classification system of disability categories that lacks utility and reliability for this purpose, and lacks acceptance by many parents and professionals. A lack of empirical research showing that students with mild disabilities grouped by category learn differently or are taught differently. Inequities in implementation of the least restrictive environment and access to general education curriculum provisions of IDEA 97. Data suggest that the restrictiveness of many special education placements is not based upon the severity of students’ disabilities, but may instead result from the configuration of the service delivery system that is available in the community. Concerns that traditional special education programs are not effective in terms of learner outcomes. Overly restrictive special education programs housed in separate schools or “cluster” sites that result in social segregation and disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities being grouped together. For example, some students, especially those with more severe disabilities, must attend separate schools to receive special services, rather than being provided appropriate services in his/her neighborhood school. Many parents and professionals feel that it is inherently inequitable that some students must leave their neighborhood schools and communities to receive appropriate services. Although neighborhood schools may be the best decision for most students, decisions must be made on an individual basis. Changing our Schools NASP recognizes that the traditional framework of special education policies and regulations is often incompatible with inclusive programs. Consequently, NASP joins with the National Association of State Boards of Education in calling for a fundamental shift in the policies which drive our compensatory education system. Changes are suggested in: The system used to identify and evaluate students with special needs. This should be made more reliable and less stigmatizing. Noncategorical services (Rights without labels) may be appropriate for inclusive education. The traditional special education funding system. The link between funding and placements must be severed. Many aspects of the funding system are driven by labels and program locations rather than by student needs. Special education funding systems must be based on the provision of services to students and not on the maintenance of programs, facilities, personnel, etc. School improvement planning. School improvement /restructuring plans must include students with disabilities. The integration of general and special education issues must be reflected in building and district level improvement plans. This requires collaboration and staff development for both general and special educators in order to address the needs of all students. NASP recognizes that the shift toward more inclusive schools will require profound changes in the ways in which schools are organized. We are committed to working with parents, other professional groups, and state and national policy-makers in creating new funding and regulatory mechanisms that promote effective programs within neighborhood schools and ensure that students with special needs continue to receive appropriate resources. We endorse a process of planned change that involves all stakeholders in research, planning, and training to ensure that our nation’s schools can attain excellence for all of our children. References Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg H.J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35. Falvey, M.A. (Ed.). (1995). Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling. Assessment, curriculum, and instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author. National Association of State Boards of Education. (1995). Winning ways: Creating inclusive schools, classrooms, and communities. Alexandria, VA: Author. National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY). (1995) The national study of inclusive education. New York: National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York. Rogers, J. (1993) The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin, no. 11. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research. Salisbury, C.L., Pumpian, I., Fisher, D., Roach,V., & McGregor, G. (1995). A framework for evaluating state and local policies for inclusion. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices.[On-line]. Available: http://www.icdi.wvu.edu/others.htm#g10 Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Staub, D. & Peck, C.A. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-40. Thompkins, R. & Deloney, P. (1995) Inclusion: The pros and cons. Issues About Change, 4, 3. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Waldron, N.L. (1997). Inclusion. In G.G. Bear, K.M. Minke, & A.Thomas (Eds.), Children’s needs II: Development, problems and alternatives. Bethesda,MD: National Association of School Psychologists. - Adopted by the NASP Delegate Assembly, 1993 - Revision adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, April 1, 2000 © 2002 National Association of School Psychologists, 4340 East West Highway, Suite 402, Bethesda MD 20814 - 301-657-0270. Please note that NASP periodically revises its Position Statements. We encourage you to check the NASP website at www.nasponline.org to ensure that you have the most current version of this Position Statement.