Thread: Inclusive Classrooms

Originally Posted by meteachulearn

I am taking a master's class on inclusive classrooms. I need to ask several professionals about using collaborative projects in their classrooms. How to you create, monitor, and assess these projects? Why do you think these projects help children with special needs?

Thank you for your help!

As a parent of a child that has been in a non inclusive setting, I can tell you why you should not use non-inclusive settings if it can be avoided.

When you walk into a special school (for high functioning kids ASD - Autism Spectrum Disorder) it is alarming to see how relatively normal the first graders are and how diviant the 9th graders are. You cannot learn normal behaviour from kids that do not know how to behave normally.

Our son developed problematic behaviour instantly, and had a much harder time in socail settings after being in a non inclusive environment.

You should read more on the method ABA - Applied Behavioral Analysis (or Lovaas therapy) which is very succesfull for transferring skills to the inclusive environment.

Inclusive environments needs to be set up in a manner, where it is possible to train individuals 1:1 outside the classroom as needed. For materials I can recommend [url="http://www.difflearn.com"]www.difflearn.com[/url]

While I support inclusion as appropriate I do not support the "Total Inclusion" movement. That is a one-size fits all approach which is never a good idea in education. A student needs to be included as is appropriate but all options need to be considered.

Inclusion works when there is a specific objective/need for it and the objective are clear.

Rather than visiting an ABA oriented site (their IQ based research is faulty at best) try:

[url]http://www.ldonline.org/articles/6297[/url] for a good summary of inclusion research

and

[url]http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm[/url]

For an interesting article on inclusion and some guidlines for developing an inclusion model.

Rick Lavoie, the creator of "F.A.T. City", also provides wonderful insight into inclusion:
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/2002-03-27-lavoie.htm[/url]

When I do inclusion, I favor team teaching with the classroom teacher. I monitor progress via observation/chacklists (when behaviors are involved), and via portfolio collection when I'm looking at accademic skills.

Inclusion helps non-disabled students learn to accept their disabled peers. The special needs student can, when inclusion is appropriate, gain self- confidence and show great growth in skills. Inclusion, when it is inapropriate, can cause great problems and damage a student's self-esteem and greatly impede progress.

I hope this helps.

As a parent whose son has gone though the henious program that proudliberaldem advocates, I am alarmed by the advice given.

proudliberaldem is a strong advocate of the TEACCH program that is without scientific documentation of any sort. Realising the shortcomings of the system its inventor Schopler resorts to publish own "reserach" measuring IQ development and resorts to using different scales on intake and outcome measurement, providing no control group andd having assesments done by people involved with his program

The claims made by proudliberaldem are simply immoral. Teachers PLEASE protect kids against this kind of advice, and use credible programs!

My information is all best practice and research proven. The only claims that are questionable at best are the claims of the ABA folks using the claim of "iq growth" (which insn't possible) as a way to support their "program".

TEACCH is a highly effective framework for the autistic student. There is nothing "henious" about the tried and provenTEACCH program.

Regardless, the info on inclusion I've given you to should be most helpful.

Originally Posted by proudliberaldem

My information is all best practice and research proven. The only claims that are questionable at best are the claims of the ABA folks using the claim of "iq growth" (which insn't possible) as a way to support their "program".

TEACCH is a highly effective framework for the autistic student. There is nothing "henious" about the tried and provenTEACCH program.

Regardless, the info on inclusion I've given you to should be most helpful.

IQ Growth; Proudliberaldem has previously referred to someones blog as documentation for the claims. The thing is that blog does not even come close to making the supposed statement. History shows that TEACCH is not very effective in building capabilities in autistic children that allow them to function in a normal environment. Therefore they try to document own excellence by fraudulent research practices, and by trying to discredit others.

TEACCH beleives in a special adapted environment - ie. counteracting inclusion. When you enter a school based on TEACCH principles you will see that older kids are substantially more deviant than younger kids.

When I see the damage my son has substained due to the inapproprite practices of TEACCH, I have to warn against blindly following its teachings. TEACCH is to far from normal life, and though it has some good tools, its teachings also rests on unsubstantiated claims on what can and cannot be done.

TEACCH remains a program that is without unbiased research to support the claims of efficiency.

ABA on the contrary assumes that the kid has normal potential, and gradualy works on bringing the competences needed. Countrary to TEACCH the efficiency of ABA is proven in hundreds of peer reviewed studies, many involving control groups and blind tests of the performance of the different groups. There are many studies where they do not resort to using different IQ scales on intake/outcome to boost results, as done by the TEACCH folks.

TEACCH is based on a theory of any autistic person needing an environment that is adapted to the individual, whereas the ABA foundation is that the individual needs to learn to adapt to the normal environment to the extent possible. Both systems require the ability to take the kid out of the classroom for special therapy/work.

I have seen many kids that have been in TEACCH programs for 1-5 years, and who have made better progress with 3-6 months of ABA than the previous years of TEACCH. Therefore I find it allarming when people like proudliberaldem applies these tactics.

I have NEVER come out of a TEACCH training course with the feeling that the claims of what an autistic person needs rested on a factual basis. It is alarming how many kids have had their futures compromised by that program.

Sorry the debate strayed a bit.

On the basic points of inclusion there is substantial common ground between the articles referred to by proudliberaldem, and the ABA findings. Svein Eikeseth's studies on effects of ABA delivered as 10hr vs 30+hr programs, shows that favouring inclusion over 1:1 work results in lower IQ and social competence.

Avoiding social contact with other ASD kids/social interaction with non-ASD kids is an absolute necessity in order to develop commonly acceptable behaviour.

The DTT (Discrete Trial Teaching) which is one of the most dominant work modes in ABA works in three stages:

1:1 training with teacher
1:1 training with typical child/children
Inclusion

All programs include these stages (at least in Scandinavia), yet some children (lower functionning) will spend the vast majority with a teacher, whereas the higher functionning children spend the majority in inclusive setting.

This format is very succesful in building appropriate behaviour, as you ensure that skills aqquired gets transferred to all environments.

The inclusive settings are where you hone the skills aqquired in 1:1 training, and where you introduce incidental learning opportunities.

Where the ABA system tries to enable the child to think for it self, the TEACCH system tries to build supportive programs to preempt stress situations, which is hard to do for a whole life.

TEACCH provides an outstanding and effective framework for developing the independance of the autistic individual and is far superior to any other program. Also, it doesn't rely on faulty and false data to support it's claims like ABA does. It starts by building a framework or structure for the classroom that allows the child to learn the routine and make individual choices. This can start at the lowest or concrete level and progresses up through very non-concrete structure such as a check list.

This program is eventually implemented in the regular ed classroom, home, and eventually the job setting. It focuses on a task based approach and also the teaching of leasure time skills. Unlike ABA, therapy is never forced.

Behaviors are looked at from an anticedent standpoint and often considered "communications". We look for the cause of the behavior. We also look at the culture of autism. We also know that at this time autism can't be "cured" no matter how much aba folks like to think so. Coping skills can be and are taught, but the autism never totally goes away.

Svein Eikeseth's studies on effects of ABA delivered as 10hr vs 30+hr programs, shows that favouring inclusion over 1:1 work results in lower IQ and social competence.

As it is a proven fact that IQ never/rarely changes more than 5 points over a person's life time, Svein's claims of "IQ increase" are faulty at best and should be considered with a large grain of salt.

Where the ABA system tries to enable the child to think for it self, the TEACCH system tries to build supportive programs to preempt stress situations, which is hard to do for a whole life.

Nice try but TEACCH builds independant living skills that are generalized. Support is provided to help the student through transitioning (a difficult task for the autistic person at best) through various stages. For the lowest functioning students, a lot of support is needed and TEACCH does do that. The higher functioning students build great self help skills, and support is usually needed most in adjusting to the routine of a new job/setting and in developing social skills.

Originally Posted by proudliberaldem

TEACCH provides an outstanding and effective framework for developing the independance of the autistic individual and is far superior to any other program.

First off it is a steep claim to make, as you appear to have no actual knowledge of anything but TEACCH. You make many claims regarding ABA but seems to have no actual knowledge. I dislike the TEACCH program because I have seen how much it has damaged my son! Thank God that there are alternatives with proven effektiveness.

When you claim that all ABA studies claiming more than 5 IQ points gain, are fraudulent, why dont you seem to worry about the "honurable" TEACCH founder Eric Schopler's study (Lord & Shopler, 1989) that claims a 22-24 IQ point gain from ages 3-7. There are so many unfounded claims surrounding TEACCH that it is hard to take serious.

With the claims you make of TEACCH effectiveness, I wonder why then can its effectiveness not be documented, why are no peer reviewed studies done and why the TEACCH founder resorts to manipulating his research.

Why is it that comprehensive unbiased research finds that the TEACCH method does not have documentation for its effectiveness, though it shows promise. A program running for 40 years, that has still not produced solid results.

I have yet to see documentation for the effectiveness of TEACCH from unbiased sources.

The Madsec Report (pg5 ex) is very clear on the fact that ABA works, and that TEACCH is unsubstantiated yet shows promise - link [url="http://www.madsec.org/docs/ATFReport.pdf"]www.madsec.org/docs/ATFReport.pdf[/url]

I feel sorry for kids enrolled in TEACCH programs, which are not augmented by objective observations and controls. TEACCH has many tools that help many kids, but without objectivity and with the tendency in TEACCH to use theory rather than objective observation, the tools are often misapplied. There are also many kids that are not helped by the TEACCH tools, and that is where the system often fails. The objectivity and the inherent ability to adjust the program are the primary reasons that ABA produces so much better results.

Everybody deserves the best chance in life, and for autistic people that is ABA at this point in time.

First off it is a steep claim to make, as you appear to have no actual knowledge of anything but TEACCH. You make many claims regarding ABA but seems to have no actual knowledge. I dislike the TEACCH program because I have seen how much it has damaged my son! Thank God that there are alternatives with proven effektiveness.

When you claim that all ABA studies claiming more than 5 IQ points gain, are fraudulent, why dont you seem to worry about the "honurable" TEACCH founder Eric Schopler's study (Lord & Shopler, 1989) that claims a 22-24 IQ point gain from ages 3-7. There are so many unfounded claims surrounding TEACCH that it is hard to take serious.

TEACCH does not damage kids, the teachers didn't run the program correctly. TEACCH has consistent and proven effectivness. The ABA studies are flawed at best and fraudlent at the least. I never saw the LATE Dr. Schopler's (he died last week) study, even when I took the training in NC. The claims and effectivness about TEACCH are true unlike the false ABA claims.

Why is it that comprehensive unbiased research finds that the TEACCH method does not have documentation for its effectiveness, though it shows promise. A program running for 40 years, that has still not produced solid results.

I have yet to see documentation for the effectiveness of TEACCH from unbiased sources.

I've already posted a link detailing 40 years of research and work. TEACCH is a highly effective program. There's no question of that. A report from Maine based on faulty ABA stats is hardly worth paying attention to.

I feel sorry for kids enrolled in TEACCH programs, which are not augmented by objective observations and controls. TEACCH has many tools that help many kids, but without objectivity and with the tendency in TEACCH to use theory rather than objective observation, the tools are often misapplied. There are also many kids that are not helped by the TEACCH tools, and that is where the system often fails. The objectivity and the inherent ability to adjust the program are the primary reasons that ABA produces so much better results.

Everybody deserves the best chance in life, and for autistic people that is ABA at this point in time.

Any autistic child not entrolled in TEACCH is missing out on their best chance of success. I feel very sad for any child enrolled in a program basing their claims on faulty if not totally false data on "raising IQ's".

There's no question that TEACCH is the vastly superior method.