Comments on: PROOF POINTS: New research review questions the evidence for special education inclusion

By: Rachel Gluck

Rachel Gluck — Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:13:23 +0000

I am in total agreement with Tony Barton’s comment. Jill Barshay’s article reinforced what we know: that the right set-up plays a critical role in the outcome. Therefore, since there are so few properly conducted studies, we must focus our attention to ensure that our students with disabilities are all in settings that are conducive to progress in all domains- academically, psychologically and socially. Ensuring all our educators are properly trained is the first step.
I have also found that I will create the learning environment for each struggling student based on the current conditions – and include each student’s personality traits as part of the assessment done to determine where the student will truly feel best and progress most.
This is similar to a general statement regarding pain. One can never compare his pain to another since pain is physiological and cannot be measured via comparison. Since the personality and individual abilities of the student, teacher, assistant and special educator all will impact the student’s outcome- it is hard to measure and determine where success is most feasible without being aware of all variables. I agree that most schools don’t know how to do inclusion well- or don’t have the staff to properly support it.
This article is great in raising our collective awareness of why the Campbell Study couldn’t be more targeted and concise with its results and what we can do to support our students best.

By: Toni Barton

Toni Barton — Thu, 12 Jan 2023 06:56:44 +0000

Of course inclusion, just in general, doesn’t increase outcomes. Just like exclusion, just in general, doesn’t help anyone. So many other things have to be true. What the kids and adults are actually doing when they are being ‘included,’ matters the most. Is there one general education teacher with 25 kids and kids with disabilities are just in class receiving whole group instruction without any targeted supports? Is there a strong co-teaching model led by two content experts with most time spent in small groups? Is the special educator a content expert? If you think about what is true about a self-contained classroom that would, arguably, be better for a student, those things can be replicated within a general education setting. As a school leader, professor, former self-contained, and inclusion teacher, there is no arguing with the notion that a non-verbal student with autism is NOT categorically better off in an autism classroom than in an inclusion classroom with strong language models. The structure of the classroom and the roles of adults have to be strategically designed so that kids benefit from any classroom structure, inclusion or otherwise. I have trained hundreds of school leaders all across the country and have learned that most schools don’t know how to do inclusion well. Let’s talk about that.

By: Larry Gebhardt

Larry Gebhardt — Mon, 09 Jan 2023 17:27:18 +0000

re: https://hechingerreport.org/proof-ponts-new-research-review-questions-the-evidence-for-special-education-inclusion/
Ref: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1291 The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs

Jill Barshay, Hechinger Reports
cc Dr. Nina Dalgaard

It is important to conduct periodic meta-analysis of topics related to public policy, funding and other aspects of education.

I disagree with the reporting by Jill Bashay regarding special education learner inclusion/exclusion.

The reason for my disagreement is that the referenced study authors report contains the authors’ data collection and meta-analysis conclusions (see below) that valid information for meta-analysis is inadequate. My read of the Dalgaard met-analysis report suggests that the two extremes – full inclusion or full exclusion – of SEN students in the ‘normal’ population may be harmful but is really unknown. Therefore, until more and better research is achieved, some logical blend of inclusion/exclusion can be designed and implemented to achieve learning and social integration objectives. My opinion comes from leading manufacturing ventures that have intentionally accommodated “SEN” adults successfully in ways that give them personal work settings along with collaborative opportunities. The emotional intelligence for diversity, equity and inclusion is, I believe, better achieved by starting in the K-12 system.

Larry Gebhardt Ph.D., Captain US Navy (Retired)
Pocatello, Idaho

Data Collection and Analysis
The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 20,183 hits. A total of 94 studies met the inclusion criteria, all were non-randomised studies. The 94 studies analysed data from 19 different countries. Only 15 studies could be used in the data synthesis. Seventy-nine studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to be of critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta-analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The 15 studies came from nine different countries. Separate meta-analyses were conducted on conceptually distinct outcomes. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of pooled effect sizes across components of risk of bias.

Authors’ Conclusions
The overall methodological quality of the included studies was low, and no experimental studies in which children were randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were found. The 15 studies, which could be used in the data synthesis, were all, except for one, judged to be in serious risk of bias. Results of the meta-analyses do not suggest on average any sizeable positive or negative effects of inclusion on children’s academic achievement as measured by language, literacy, and math outcomes or on the overall psychosocial adjustment of children. The average point estimates favoured inclusion, though small and not statistically significant, heterogeneity was present in all analyses, and there was inconsistency in direction and magnitude of the effect sizes. This finding is similar to the results of previous meta-analyses, which include studies published before 2000, and thus although the number of studies in the current meta-analyses is limited, it can be concluded that it is very unlikely that inclusion in general increases or decreases learning and psychosocial adjustment in children with special needs. Future research should explore the effects of different kinds of inclusive education for children with different kinds of special needs, to expand the knowledge base on what works for whom.