ABSTRACT This dissertation advocates for an inclusion policy change and implementation in Northshore School District, a public school district in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. In an effort to promote a fair education that embraces the diversity of all children in the district, a policy that provides an educational, economic, social, political and moral/ethical analysis is essential. This information will guide every aspect of the policy and practices designed to educate all children, maximize learning, and provide financial adequacy. Past policies and implementation pertaining to inclusion and instructional differentiation are reviewed and strengths and weaknesses of each are identified. The current beliefs and available programs in the district are a result of exclusionary practices of educating children with disabilities and diverse needs. The new policy will provide district wide accessibility to learning for all students, regardless of the label. INTRODUCTION TO THE POLICY ADVOCACY DISSERTATION: PURPOSE AND FORMAT An alternative to the traditional doctoral dissertation is the policy advocacy document which focuses on a specific educational issue or position and is used as a policy guide to follow in professional practice. This approach has emerged as a result of the need for more thoughtful policy development, concerns regarding moral leadership, and a desire to develop reflective practices in administration (Browder, 1995). Reflecting on research for doctoral students in education, Anderson (2002) suggests a broader research continuum for doctoral education that includes self-reflective practitioner research that contributes beyond the scope of traditional research, be it qualitative or quantitative. Steeped in reflection around planning, implementing, and assessing local, state, and national programs and policies, the policy advocacy document offers a substitute to how most schools of education prepare educational leaders for the world practice (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel & Garabedian, 2006). The policy advocacy document promotes the need for reform in the educational policy construction process. It allows us to utilize systems theory and common sense administrative procedures when developing instructional delivery models, reflective practices and other devices as a means for supporting and promoting reform (Forester, 1981). The policy advocacy document emphasizes research-based arguments and reflective insights into policy analysis and related administrative requirements necessary to the advocated policy. There is a need for a policy that not only works and is practical, but that is socially and politically critical. A policy that helps us to identify the As Is or current problem and outlines the systemic change that must occur to achieve the To Be or end results (Wagner, 2006). The policy advocacy document explores the areas of educational, political, social, economic, and moral/ ethical dimensions of schooling. This purpose is used to gain knowledge and information, which then directs the paradigm shift and policy changes that should occur. This model encourages and promotes moral leadership through reflective practice and advocates for changing an issue rather than just describing the issue. I have chosen to use the policy advocacy document framework, as outlined by Browder (1995), for my dissertation because it serves as a framework for gathering the information needed to promote the acceptance, understanding, and implementation of an inclusion policy for all students. A policy is needed so that all students, regardless of the label, have access to a quality education. Instructional methods, community/school acceptance of differences, financial resources and allocations, and program options within the district need to be examined and changed if necessary. I have important foundational knowledge about the Northshore School District related to this inquiry due to my direct involvement as a Special Education teacher, an Associate Principal and a Director of Student Services. Throughout this document, I will reflect on my past, current, and future experiences as an educator and administrator in the school district and discuss the common practices used over the past ten years. By describing the successes, failures, and inconsistencies across the district, it will become clear which practices need to change or be eliminated completely. I will examine inclusion policies that have been adopted in other school districts of similar demographics and the factors that have impeded or facilitated this paradigm shift. A historical timeline of where we have been and where we should be with our special education and differentiated instructional practices and policies at the local, state, and federal levels will also be included. The policy advocacy document begins with a vision statement, which will describe how I became aware of the need to address this policy issue, how it was to be implemented and monitored, and the potential outcomes of the implementation of the advocated policy. I will explore the past and present special education and differentiated instructional practices and describe the educational system used in our district and its impact on the school community. This section will also include recommendations for policy change so that all children can access a quality education. In the next section, the problem and its context are more specifically defined and five disciplines, moral/ethical, education, social, political, and economic, are explored to provide further understanding of the issue. Each area of research will reveal the importance of developing a policy that minimizes the impact of disabilities and learning differences and maximizes learning opportunities. Through this process, I will gain a fuller understanding of the problems. I will use this analysis to make choices and shape the advocated policy. In the third section, I will provide a definition of what the policy is advocating for and the specific goals and objectives that it supports such as, whose needs, values, and preferences are represented in the policy and on what basis are the goals and objectives that the policy aims to achieve determined. A policy argumentation section follows. I will present the pros and cons on the merit of the advocated policy, consider research findings, public and professional opinions, and other relevant factors. A policy implementation plan will also be needed to make the case that implementation of the advocated policy is administratively feasible. I will describe how the advocated policy will be implemented, if adopted, and provide a detailed plan of activities, professional development, schedules, budget, and progress monitoring procedures. The final sections of my document will include a policy assessment plan and a policy impact statement. The assessment plan will describe how individuals will be held accountable, what progress monitoring system will be used, and the evaluation tools used to measure outcomes of the implemented policy. The policy impact statement will be reflective in nature and contain all aspects of the completed document. The framework of a policy advocacy document provides the structure needed to address the areas that most often create discontent and discussion in school districts. In an effort to promote a fair education for all children across the district, a policy that provides an educational, economic, social, political, and moral/ethical analysis is essential. This information will guide every aspect of the policy and practices designed to educate children and maximize their learning. While writing the policy advocacy document, I will have the opportunity to review the districts past policies and implementation pertaining to inclusion and differentiated instruction and identify the strengths and weaknesses of these practices. What was the As Is and what is the To Be? The current beliefs and practices in the district have resulted from a long history of exclusionary practices of educating children with learning differences. It will take time and careful implementation of a Look Beyond the Label Policy to change this situation. CHAPTER I: VISION STATEMENT This chapter will provide the reader with definitions of terms that will be used throughout the policy advocacy document. Historical background at the district, state and federal level will also be included in the vision statement section. I will describe how I became aware of the need to address this policy issue, how it is to be implemented and monitored, and the potential outcomes of the advocated policy. Inclusion is the term often used by educators to describe a philosophical approach to the education of children with disabilities. Inclusionary schools are committed to educating all children, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom they would attend if not disabled. A service delivery model that involves bringing the services to the child rather than the child to the services is implemented and responsibilities are shared by all staff (Schrag, 1994). To some, inclusion means that students attend their home school and are placed in a classroom with typically developing students of the same age and grade. It requires that the proportion of students labeled special education is relatively uniform across all the schools within a school district, thus reflecting the proportion of people with disabilities in society. Salend (2001) describes inclusion as an attempt to establish collaborative, supportive and nurturing communities of learners that are based on giving all students the services and accommodations they need to learn, as well as respecting and learning from each other??s individual differences (pg. 5) The most current special education amendments describe inclusion as a term that gives children with special needs an opportunity to be educated in a general education classroom (Tilton, 1997). Therefore, inclusion is not a placement but implies that all students will receive a quality education among peers without disabilities and who are of similar age. For this document, inclusion is defined as the creation of schools as places where everyone belongs, diversity is celebrated, and a continuum of educational options are available providing programs that are both challenging and individualized. Within an inclusionary school a community is formed that values and respects all students. It acknowledges that a team effort is involved, connecting students, parents, teachers, administrators, Board members, and educational support personnel to ensure that these efforts are successful. An inclusive school benefits children developmentally and socially by embracing the notion that all children can and will learn. Examining inclusionary practices allows us to challenge the fundamental organization of all educational services within a school district. Inclusion is not just a special education issue, it is an issue that expands into all areas of effective education for children. School and district wide discussions regarding the definition of inclusion must take place to ensure that all stakeholders fully understand and embrace this philosophy. Policies that support schools implementation of this type of inclusion model need to be developed, implemented and evaluated by all members of the school community in order to achieve its full potential. Over the years, special education mandates, litigation and philosophical changes regarding the mission of the United States educational system have forced public school educators to embrace inclusion practices for students with disabilities (Hoppey, Yendol-Silva & Pullen, 2004). In the 1950??s parent movements began to emerge to protect the rights of children with significant disabilities and to advocate for access to public education (Turnbull, 2007). At this time, it was very difficult for students with disabilities to receive any type of education. These students were frequently placed in segregated programs and facilities and often excluded from school completely. If a child with a disability was fortunate enough to attend public school they were isolated from their typically developing peers. The 1954 Supreme Court decision that abolished racial segregation, set the stage for emerging concerns about segregated education for students with disabilities (Brown v. Board of Education). Soon after desegregation issues in public schools, came litigation issues concerning children with disabilities. Progress slowly began to occur in the 1960??s and 1970??s as parent groups and legislators began to join forces. Children who were often excluded from public schools were being placed in educational programs. These programs were far from meeting our standards of today and frequently were housed apart from the general education programs. The concept of mainstreaming began to shape the course of federal legislation by addressing the nature and quality of the education provided to children and youth with disabilities (Turnbull, 2007). Mainstreaming refers to assigning a student with disabilities to a general education classroom for part or all of the school day (NASBE 1992). This practice often resulted in problems with communication and collaboration between general education and special education staff and left the child feeling fragmented with no sense of belonging in either setting. Children that were mainstreamed for social purposes or special classes did not have the opportunity to fully experience and develop the social skills needed to become an active member of their class. In November 1975, President Gerald Ford signed P.L. 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Specifically the law states: That to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children, including those children in public and private institutions or care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped, and that special education classes, separate schooling, or removal of handicapped children from the regular education environments occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in the regular classes with the use of supplementary aides and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (P.L. 94-142). This special education mandate proclaimed that all students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The LRE initiative forced educators to reevaluate student academic and social needs, giving students more placement options within the public school system. Since the mid 1980??s, there has been a strong national movement to include all children in general education classrooms within their neighborhood schools (Hammond et al., 2003). The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA 1997) emphasizes two major principles: The education of students with disabilities should produce outcomes similar to those of students in general education and students with disabilities should be educated with their nondisabled peers. Politicians believed that having high expectations for all students in the general education curriculum would secure a solid education producing successful educational results. Special education would become a service for identified children rather than a place (Lipsky, 1998). School boards have expressed an interest in policy initiatives focused on this integrated model, which would serve all children within the context of general education. However, the existence of research that explores the process and conditions under which policies produce their intended outcomes is limited (Kaufman, 1995; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987). Educational reform challenges schools to focus on the philosophy that all students can learn and that they can learn at high levels. New federal laws have directed schools to focus on helping all children learn before they fall behind. These laws include the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Both of these laws stress the importance of providing high quality, research based interventions that are designed to include more children, regardless of the label, in the general education classroom, but many schools continue to follow exclusionary practices. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) promises that no child will be left behind when it comes to school achievement. It implies that all children, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, gender, creed, color or disability will have equal access to a fair and equitable education. Under NCLB, politicians expect quality teachers to establish programs that meet high academic standards to improve our educational system for all students. In addition, schools are held accountable for the progress of all students in terms of meeting grade level standards. The Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004) prompted a series of changes in the way special education services are implemented. One major result of this reauthorization was that school districts no longer are required to follow the ??discrepancy model when identifying children with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Educational teams are allowed and encouraged to find other ways to determine when a child needs support and how to provide those interventions. This is being implemented through a process called Response to Intervention (RtI). As a result, identification is not about the student??s label, but rather about determining which instructional methods and materials are most helpful in closing the achievement gap. RtI is not just a process that is used to make eligibility decisions but it is about creating a learning environment that is effective and leads to improved outcomes for all students. Like special education, the RtI model should be an inclusive partnership between all school personnel and community members to identify and address the academic and behavioral needs of all learners. Recommendations for Policy Change Although districts are being pressured to adopt inclusion policies, inclusion programs and practices are difficult to implement. This movement has been met with much support, however, there are many challenges professionals encounter when implementing inclusionary programs. Inclusion challenges general and special educators to share the responsibility of providing an appropriate educational program for all students (Hammond & Ingalls, 2003). In 2002, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law was passed in an effort to encourage and enforce teacher accountability and higher student performances for all learners on state mandated assessments. Professionals must search for better programs that will successfully educate and include students with disabilities within the general education classroom (Hoppey, et al., 2004). According to Praisner (2003), determining how to educate and include students with disabilities within the general education classroom is the question educators continue to ponder. The Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-446,108th Congress), was signed by President George W. Bush in December 2004. This Act contains similar language to P.L.94-142 but outlines the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate, which focuses on educating children with disabilities with their non-disabled peers. The Illinois Board of Education has approved and adopted the LRE (Least Restrictive Environment) policy to ensure that it meets the requirements in IDEA (2004) requiring that to the maximum extent appropriate all students with disabilities will be educated with children who are not disabled. IDEA (2004) and NCLB (2002) require administrators and teachers to consider the general education classroom as the most appropriate educational setting for students with disabilities (Hoppey, 2004). These mandates have presented challenges for all school districts regardless of location, resources or population. Located along the shores of Lake Michigan, the affluent community that is home to Northshore School District has not been excluded from the pressures of how to best meet the needs of all students. Northshore School District houses its approximately 2,200 students in three elementary schools and one middle school. The rigorous curriculum, excellent test scores and innovative practices reflect the expectations of the highly educated, financially secure, community members. The extremely involved, well informed parents are strong advocates for their children and do not hesitate to share their ideas with teachers, administrators and school board members. In recent years, the inclusionary practices of our special education students have been a topic of discussion with both general and special education teachers, parents and administrators. Historically, our district has provided special education services for children with significant needs in only one of our elementary buildings or in programs offered by the cooperative in other communities. Students and families needed to become part of a school community that might be different then that of their neighbors or siblings. In an effort to include special education students in their neighborhood schools a paradigm shift has taken place. As much as possible, students with special needs have been encouraged to attend their neighborhood schools or programs that are available in other buildings in the district. The number of students with special education needs in each of the buildings has increased, and as a result, staffing changes and additional training has been necessary. I have been met with some resistance from our general education staff and administrators regarding the inclusion of these students into their classrooms and buildings. Including the special education students in the general education classroom has increased the already demanding role of the staff. Henteleff (2002) asserted that effective inclusion requires that educators modify curriculum, assess student needs, make adjustments in instruction, and deliver information in a way that meets the needs of a diverse range of learners. In my experiences, the majority of our general education teachers do not feel adequately prepared to teach a variety of students with unique learning styles and needs, especially students with disabilities. Teachers feel the pressure to make sure that no child is left behind in their classroom and fear that the typical students will suffer due to the time and attention required to address the needs of the disabled students. If inclusive practices are to be embraced by all participants, more time, more training, more resources, and more help will be necessary. The response from parents has been mixed. Many general education parents have requested that their children not be placed in a classroom that has inclusion students present, while others embrace the diverse needs of all students and welcome their participation in school and extra curricular events. I have also been working very closely with our local Learning Disabilities Association (LDA), which is comprised of community members that have children with a variety of disabilities. The families are extremely interested in promoting disability awareness, tolerance, and inclusion in the public schools and community. The LDA hosts a variety of workshops, guest speakers, and town hall meetings in an effort to share new information, techniques, and current legal issues with the participants. This is a powerful, intelligent, group of community members that can impact the culture and climate in our schools both negatively and positively. The type of inclusion programs, that facilitate all learners, depends on how the district defines inclusion (Idol, 1996). Our district does not enforce full inclusion but believes in a continuum of special education services as outlined in IDEA (2004) which mandates that children with special needs be educated with nondisabled peers whenever feasible. The placement options for children with disabilities in our district, are limited to the regular education classroom with or without supplemental aids and services, the regular education classroom with a modified curriculum for some or all of the subjects and a pull out resource classroom for part of the day with the remainder of the day being spent in the regular classroom or in activities with students who do not have disabilities. At times, this range of services does not meet the needs of our students with low incident disabilities that require a highly specialized program. These students are frequently placed in expensive private day schools or attend classes offered by the cooperative in neighboring communities. As the student body becomes more diverse, the continuum of services offered by Northshore School District will need to be reviewed and a policy put in place that empowers the district to include rather than exclude students that do not fit the existing model. Northshore School District uses the RtI model to identify and provide appropriate learning experiences for students at risk for academic failure. When implemented with integrity, this model should actively involve both general and special education teachers throughout the multi-tier instructional layers. However, in the district, the responsibility of screening, selecting and delivering instruction, progress monitoring and interpretation falls on the shoulders of the special education staff. Typically instruction takes place in a small group, in a special education room, with a special educator, during a special activity such as art, physical education or music. Students are separated from their classmates and excluded from classes that they frequently excel in and enjoy. How is this different than the exclusionary practices used in special education? CHAPTER II: NEEDS ANALYSIS In this chapter, I will show through careful analysis the importance of developing an inclusion policy that is responsive to the diverse learning needs of all children in Northshore School District. I will explore five distinct disciplinary areas in an effort to bring fuller understanding to the problems and to shape the advocated policy. Moral/ethical, educational, social, economic, and political analysis will provide the information needed for the development of a policy that will accept all children as resources of the community, with gifts to be celebrated as well as special needs to be met. Moral/Ethical Analysis The eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries has left a lasting impression upon educational policy. Historically, society viewed people with disabilities as inherently incapable of learning and believed that the only way to prevent mental, physical and moral contamination of the healthy population was to identify and segregate those who were degenerate, preventing them from breeding. State Institutions were developed and people were incarcerated in substandard conditions without recognition of fundamental constitutional rights simply by scoring poorly on a standardized intelligence test. It was not until the turn of the century when attitudes toward the education of children with mental retardation and other disabilities began to change. The reason for the change in attitude was due in part to complaints about the custodial and retrogressive nature of the public residential institutions; however, it was more a result of the creation of a mass public education system and the expansion of notions of public responsibility. In the second half of the 20th century this discourse was replaced by the discourse of normalization, which acknowledged the educational needs of children with learning difficulties and provided schooling opportunities for the most part, within a separate schooling system. (Armstrong, 2003). New approaches were developed that demonstrate that even students with significant disabilities can move from school to supportive, competitive work environments. These changes began when a coalition of parents and educators challenged the dominant view of mental retardation as tragic, hopeless and potentially menacing. This attitude was replaced by the view that children with mental retardation could benefit from education and supportive families and communities, and that people with mental retardation had rights just like all Americans under the Constitution. In an effort to alleviate some of the problems faced by disadvantaged children in the schooling process, the federal government has enacted a series of policies to ensure equal access to education by diverse students. The school policy environment of the 1960s and 1970s reflects a marked awareness of the needs of children with disabilities, many of whom previously had been neglected. During the mid to late 1980s, little attention was given to the needs of students with disabilities in the public policy debate. Perhaps it was assumed that these children were safe because of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) and the court decisions won in the 1970s (Paul, Berger, Osnes, Martinez, Morse, 1997). This group??s rights-based arguments successfully ended the practice of exclusion, initially through the courts and with the passage of PL94-142. This new special education law outlined the rights based concepts of due process concerning the identification and placement process of children with disabilities, limiting the states?? power and giving parents a powerful implementation tool. Although there is room for improvement, the educational status of these children has greatly improved since the passing of PL94-142 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Prior to these laws, students could legally be excluded from school, a common practice exercised by most states. Widespread exclusion and institutionalization have been eliminated and major strides toward integration have occurred. Changed attitudes toward disability were necessary to challenge the dominant dysfunctional and abusive practices that characterized society??s response to children with disabilities; however, it would be a mistake to assume that merely changing attitudes is sufficient. In order to develop a core ethic of care and hospitality to all, districts must have the discipline to carefully monitor and develop thoughtful policies that reflect caring for all students. Policies should be developed and advocated that include students in all aspects of the school??s life. When we are guided by policies that encourage hospitality to all, we learn the importance of opening doors for people whose lives have been marginalized or whose capabilities have not been realized. In living our lives this way, we create an ethic of care. This ethic of care is defined by respect for and a sense of responsibility to all of humanity (Paul et al. 1997). There is not a one size fits all solution to the issue of where and how children can best be served. Neither the research nor the moral arguments lead to a single solution to the ongoing debate about inclusion. However, districts can be buffers between the policy process to resist simplistic solutions, which, marginalize and stigmatize children and tie our schools to educational practices of the past. Paul et al. (1997) declared that how we treat the stranger is a test of The ethical point of view which is described as coming to see one??s own actions through the eyes of those that will be affected by there actions. In our schools the stranger is often the student with disabilities or another student at risk. Ethics are needed when we realize the social context of education. Ethics are vital when we make schools places that open up to the community. What we can learn of new and different people enlarges our knowledge and helps us define the kind of society in which we want to live. Education Analysis Special education is the vehicle by which we have constructed the support that many students with disabilities need to be successful in school. This service is federally mandated through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) with strong support from parents and most educators
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]