Inclusion - Johns Hopkins University

Inclusion

for SuccèsIEP eetiiJennifer A. Diliberto

Denise Brewer

Sam Payton is an outgoing, bright, 5-year-old boy who was well liked byhis peers and teachers in preschool. Atthe beginning of the Sam's kinder-garten year, his teacher started shar-ing concerns about his behavior withMs. Payton. According to his teacher,Sam was not able to sit still and waseating erasers. The teacher movedSam to sit away from the other chil-dren, sent home "black clouds" everyday as part of the classroom disciplinepolicy, took away his recess, setit himto the principal's office, and threat-ened to suspend him for his behavior.At that time, Sam was receiving spe-cial education services for articulationfrom the speech therapist. As a con-cerned parent, Ms. Payton asked foran individualized education program(IEP) meeting.

During the IEP meeting, Ms. Paytonlearned that the classroom teacher wasthe only team member who knew thatSam had an IEP. The team discussedSam's development and concluded thathe needed further evaluation. Beforethe meeting ended, Ms. Payton restat-ed her concerns regarding Sam'sbehavior in the classroom and herinterest in talking about positive waysto help him. The team discussed onepositive behavior síraíegy for the class-room teacher to implement.

While waiting for evaluationresults, Sam's self-esteem plummeted.He dreaded going to school and madestatements like "The teachers think Idon't know how to do anything" and"The other kids won 7 play with mebecause I am always sitting bymyself " Sam began to dislike going toschool and his classroom behaviorsworsened, ¡n addition, there was noopen communication among the IEPteam members.

Sam's evaluation was completed 4months later, and the IEP team wasready to reconvene. The agenda cov-

ered evaluation results and specialeducation and related service plans.Ms. Payton restated her concerns andasked that Sam's IEP be written toaddress these. After much discussion,the team agreed that they needed todevelop a behavior intervention plaiLThe team scheduled a time to recon-vene again to complete a behaviorintervention plan. T\vo weeks later, theplan was finally put into place

The Paytons' experience is an exampleof a situation where a lack of commu-nication between the school and par-ents caused a kindergartener's class-room behaviors to escalate. Bothteacher and parent were trying toaddress concerns, but not from a holis-tic approach.

One of the core guiding principlesof the Individuals With DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA, 2006) is theimplementation of an individualizededucation program (IEP). The IEP isthe curriculum road map for specialeducation services developed by ateam of individuals who are critical to

The IEP also should play a majorrole in creating lesson plans to meetthe student's unique needs. However,many IEPs lack required details to suc-cessfully guide instructional planning(Capizzi, 2008). Every IEP shouldinclude enough detail to allow fullunderstanding by someone unfamiliarwith the student (Bugaj, 2000). TheIEP should be based on appropriateassessments as well as the student'sstrengths and needs, considered by theteam as a whole, with the family par-ticipating fully (O'Conner & Wyasik,2008).

Open Communiccrtion =Meaningful Engagement

Communication and planning are thedriving forces behind successful IEPmeetings with communication as thetop of an umbrella with the remainingtips under it (see Figure 1). The sixtips provided in Figure 1 are to helpfoster positive communication withinthe IEP meeting. These tips include (a)pre-meeting planning, (b) meetingfacilitator, (c) meeting agenda, (d)

The key to successful IEPdevelopment is open communication.

the student's educational success—including families. Although com-munication often becomes a challengefor team members, the key to suc-cessful IEP development is opencommunication.

As a road map to special educationservices, the IEP is essential in plan-ning appropriate instruction for stu-dents with disabilities and shouldguide the integration of general andspecial education curriculum. IEPteams can narrow the gap betweengeneral and special education effortsby providing an intervention plan thatlinks the natural classroom environ-ment to IEP goals and strategies (Jung,Gomez, Baird, & Keramidas, 2008).

ground rules, (e) team member knowl-edge essentials, and (f) jargon usage.The IEP team must include the specialeducation teacher, parent (s), generaleducation teacher(s), related servicepersonnel, local education agency(LEA) representative (principal or otheradministrator), and other professionalscritical to the educational well-being ofthe student (34 C.F.R. § 300.344).

include Parents From the Start

To help foster positive communicationwith families—and to comply with theintent of IDEA regulations (34 C.F.R. §300.22)—educators should refrain frompredetermining IEP decisions, complet-ing IEP forms without family input.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MAR/APR 2012 31

Figure 1 . Essential Eiements ef Successful IEP Meetings

Pre-Meeting ^^ «̂«+'"9 MeetingPlanning Fac'"'tator

CO/WAAUNICATION

LimitJargon

U

A

and excluciing families when writinggoals and objectives (Fish, 2008).Instead of presenting parents with pre-determined draft goals at the IEP meet-ing, work with them to develop a draftof goals and objectives and providethem with relevant assessment reports2 weeks before the meeting; thisinvolves them from the first steps ofthe process (Fish, 2008). Open commu-nication prior to the meeting showsrespect for parental knowledge of thestudent's abilities and needs within theeducational setting and fosters anequal team member partnership.Communicating with parents in thismanner respects the knowledge theybring to the table while also demon-strating that educators care about stu-dents' well-being.

Parents who are active team mem-bers can help teachers better under-stand and develop empathy for the stu-dent and family. Understandingparental and student needs is part ofpositive rapport building that leads toopen communication and which needsto be developed (Staples & Diliberto,2010). Staples and Diliberto recom-mended several strategies for buildingrapport with parents:

• Contacting parents prior to thebeginning of the school year.

• Emphasizing an open-door policy.

• Encouraging parental visits and par-ticipation during lunch, classroomactivities, and field trips.

• Providing several forms of contactinformation (e.g., e-mail, telephonenumbers with available times).

These strategies can help set the stagefor positive communication with par-ents, building rapport. These activitiescan also help foster the successfulteaming needed during the IEP processas well as provide effective home-school communication throughout theschool year.

For parents to successfully partici-pate in the IEP process, it is essentialfor them to understand the specialeducation process and governing lawsand regulations. Effective school dis-tricts and special educators takeresponsibility for informing parents oftheir rights. According to IDEA, allparents or guardians must receive a

32 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

copy of procedural safeguards (34C.F.R. § 300.503)—although individualstates have different names for thisdocument (e.g.. Parental Rights Hand-book, Child Rights & Parents' Responsi-bility) . The problem is that such docu-ments are often written at a levelbeyond the parent's understanding(Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006) or not intheir native language. If parents areunable to read and comprehend docu-ments relating to their participation,then both their understanding of thelEP process and their parental rightsare compromised. Schools should pro-vide parent education classes to relaybasic information about the law. Inaddition, special education teacherscan highlight critical elements of thelaw when providing a copy of the pro-cedural safeguards. Teachers shouldnot assume parents understand theinformation once read; it can be help-ful to walk parents through the processfrom the beginning while educatingthem about their rights and how theprocess progresses, especially if this isthe parent's first lEP meeting.

Elicit General Education Teachers'Content Expertise

Administrative and judicial decisionshave highlighted the significance of thegeneral education teacher's involve-ment in the IEP process (Etscheidt,2007), finding that IEPs written with-out general education teacher partici-pation denied students their access to afree appropriate public education(FAPE; Etscheidt, 2007, p. 14). Bothgeneral and special education teachersneed to understand the purpose andbenefits of open communication andthe value of the 1ER Because individu-alization is the main purpose of theIEP (Kamens, 2002), students' individ-ual strengths and needs must be con-sidered when developing goals andobjectives. The IEP provides a roadmap for special education services anda guide for lesson planning thataddresses student needs. IEPs mayaddress both academic and functionalachievement, so related service person-nel (e.g., speech language pathologists,physical therapists, occupational thera-

pists) often are also an integral part ofthe team.

Develop Integrated IEPs

Because generalization of skills is acommon challenge among individualswith disabilities (Heward, 2009), it isessential that teaching students theskills proscribed by their IEP goals andobjectives occur in a variety of real-lifesettings. Embedding related servicegoals and objectives within specialeducation service goals and objectivesand set standards provides optimalopportunities for students to generalizeskills (Panages, 2003). For IEP goals tobe useful and well integrated, theyshould be developed by a team reflect-ing expertise in every area supportingthe plan. Related service personnel aremore than consultants; they are criticalmembers of the team and should beincluded during all levels of theprocess. Writing integrated goals pro-motes communication, decreasespaperwork, and maintains the focus onthe student.

Welcome Everyone

The age and needs of the studentdetermine the types of other profes-sionals to include on the IEP team. Theessential team members should ask:Who else could help us develop an IEPthat will highlight this student'sstrengths and address deficit skills?

For students transitioning from onesetting to another, educators from bothsettings should be part of the teamdeveloping the IEP. The inclusion ofboth old and new parties assists thestudent in making a smoother transi-tion to the new setting. Other essentialprofessionals might include communitytransition specialists for students 16and older. Students themselves shouldbe invited as early as the student orparents feel is appropriate. If the stu-dent does attend the IEP meeting, thetransition specialist will have theopportunity to learn more about thestudent's needs, interests, and futuregoals for optimal transition planning.

IDEA requires that discussions offormal assessment data must include ateam member knowledgeable in inter-preting the data (34 C.F.R. § 300.308).

Strategies to EnsureOpen Communication j

• At family's convenience, regularcommunication via telephoneconversations, e-mails, textmessages, daily/weekly/monthly parent-teacher journal

• Frequent progress reports

• Form notes/fill-in-the-blanks

• Student agenda/planner totrack assignments; can also pro-vide a method for teacher andfamily to communicate

• Education acronyms "cheatsheet" with definitions

• Documentation of student work

Therefore, at initial evaluation orréévaluation meetings, the school psy-chologist or outside evaluator shouldbe included as part of the team to clar-ify aspects of the assessment (e.g.,standard score). Many parents andeven general educators may beunaware of assessment terminologyand significance.

Many parents invite advocates toaccompany them throughout the IEPprocess. If a parent invites an advocateto an IEP meeting, the advocate shouldbe included in pre-meeting discussionsand be valued as an important teammember. If the entire team acknowl-edges the advocate as a full teammember, then communication amongall parties can maintain a positive tone.

Communication takes both time anddedication. It can be challenging toeffectively communicate during an IEPmeeting with multiple team members.Because all members bring a differentbody of knowledge and perspective tothe table, pre-meeting communicationensures the development of a thoroughplan. Pre-meeting communication canalso result in multiple opinions for IEPdevelopment; in addition to usingstrategies that ensure open communi-cation with families (see box, "Strate-gies to Ensure Open Communication"),educators can follow six helpful tipsthat promote effective IEP meetings.Using the analogy of communication


table 1 . Ground Rules 1er Pesitive IEP Meetingsbeing viewed as the top of theumbrella, the six tips sum up howcommunication supports the develop-ment of an overarching plan.

Tips for Success

# 1 : Pre-Meeting Planning

Pre-meeting planning and communica-tion allows team members to brain-storm ideas to be incorporated withinthe IEP. Prior to the meeting, teammembers (including parents) shouldshare ideas about student strengths,needs, and goals for the coming year.Sharing ideas ahead of time allowsteam members to digest the informa-tion and prepare for the IEP decision-making process with a sense of fullteam involvement. The entire IEP teamplays a critical role in determining howthe IEP and communication processunfolds.

Before Sam's next IEP meeting,Ms. Payton contacted her schoolrepresentative and asked for anygoal ideas the team had dis-cussed so she could also be apart of their development. Ms.Payton also let everyone knowthat she wanted Sam's IEP toinclude a behavior plan. Thisinformation gave the entire teamthe opportunity to brainstormideas before the IEP meeting.

#2: Meeting Facilitator

Because it can be difficult to guide ameeting and simultaneously recordinformation or data on IEP forms, themeeting facilitator's role should belimited to activities solely relating torunning the meeting: developing an

It is the facilitator's responsibility to make sureall team members follow the ground rules set at thebeginning of the meeting and stick to the agenda.

Communicate clearly andlisten carefully.

Ask and welcomequestions for clarification.

Respect others' views.

Share views willingly.

Be open to different ideasand views.

Look to the future, notthe past.

Communication is a two-way street. The speakershould articulate thoughts clearly and preciselyand the other participants should carefully listenfor the complete message. IEP team membersshould practice active listening skills. If listenersdo not understand the message articulated by thespeaker, then it is important to ask questions forclarification.

In order for successful communication to occur, lis-teners often need clarification about the message.Team members must remember that interpretationsare largely based on one's background knowledgeand experiences. The IEP meeting needs to be asafe place where everyone feels respected andcomfortable enough to ask questions.

Because each team member comes to themeeting with a different perspective, all viewsneed to be respected and welcomed. Due tomyriad experiences and background knowledge, avariety of views might be presented on one topic.All views should be acknowledged and discussed.Often, the solution might be a combination ofdivergent views.

Each team member should be willing to sharehis or her views; this will ensure collaborativedevelopment of the student's 1ER

With different backgrounds and experiencesrepresented on the IEP team, team membersshould be open to all ideas and views presented.Through the IEP process the ideas and views cometogether to develop a well-rounded plan to meetthe student's needs in all settings.

Team members should focus on the road aheadand develop the best plan for meeting the currentand future needs of the student, while taking intoaccount strategies that have worked or not workedin the past.

agenda, presenting it at the meeting,reviewing ground rules, and monitor-ing the meeting process while guidingthe team through good communica-tion. It is the facilitator's responsibilityto make sure all team members follow

the ground rules set at the beginningof the meeting and stick to the agendaagreed upon at the start of the meet-ing. The facilitator's role is not tohurry through the agenda items, but toaid in the communication process to

ensure every team member has anequal voice.

The school social worker, Ms.Oakley, was the meeting facilita-tor for Sam's next IEP meeting.Ms. Oakley was Ms. Pay ton'smain contact and explained herrole as facilitator to Ms. Payton.At the meeting, Ms. Oakleyshared the agenda and went oversome ground rules. Ms. Oakleyhelped keep the meeting focusedon the IEP, while letting the team


What Is Person-CenteredPlanning?

"Person-centered planning is aprocess-oriented approach toempowedng people with disabilitylabels. It focuses on the peopleand their needs by putting them incharge of defining the direction fortbeir lives, not on the systems thatmay or may not be available toserve them" (Cornell UniversityEmployment and Disability Insti-tute, 2011, para. 1). Implementingperson-centered planning estab-lishes joint, positive, respectfulrelationships that produce goal-oriented and individualized plans(Claes, Van Hove, Vandevelde,van Loon, & Schalock, 2010).

engage in open discussions. Ms.Payton felt that having a facilita-tor helped her understand theIEP pwcess better and allowedher voice to be heard.

#3: The Meeting Agenda

A meeting agenda allows all IEP teammembers, including parents, the oppor-tunity to provide input on topics. Theagenda is not meant to stifle the com-munication process, but to providedirection for producing the IEP. Thedevelopment of the meeting agendashould occur several days pdor to themeeting and the facilitator shouldinvite items from all parties, includingparents. Tbe meeting agenda is a fluiddocument that can change at any timedepending on the needs of tbe team.During the meeting, tbe agenda shouldbe posted for all members to viewand/or distributed. The facilitatorshould review the draft agenda at thebeginning of tbe meeting and track theagenda topics as discussed. Ti'ackingand checking off agenda topics as dis-cussed keeps tbe team focused on tbeprocess of developing tbe IEP. An effec-tive agenda includes: welcome andintroduction of team members, groundrules, summary of assessment data,review of student strengths and needs,IEP development, and closure. Postingground rules with the agenda reminds

team members of good positive com-munication skills.

The IEP team meeting facilitator,Ms. Oakley, talked with all teammembers before the meeting andcreated an agenda based on theirfeedback. She shared the agendawith all team rjiembers before themeeting. After reading the agen-da, Ms. Payton felt confident thather priorities and eoncems wouldbe discussed: when she suggestedan agenda item, Ms. Oakleyadded it immediately.

#4: Ground Rules

Ground rules for IEP meetings (JDL &Associates, 1999) provide team mem-bers with positive communicationguidelines to follow dudng tbe meeting(see Table 1) and promote positiveinterpersonal communication (Friendand Cook, 2010). Maintaining a person-centered planning focus also canenhance communication throughoutthe IEP meeting (see box, "What IsPerson-Centered Planning?").

Usitig ground rules helped focusthe team and the discussion.According to the ground rules.

Table 2 . IEP Team Members' Areas of Knowledge

Area

Student background

Laws and regulations

Interpretation ofassessment data

Curriculum

Source

Family

LEA representative/school administrator

Related servicepersonnel

General educationteacher/departmentchair

Why Is This Important?

No one knows the student better than the family. Sharing family knowl-edge is crucial in developing the IEP; the family may be able to providebackground and detail on the student's strengths and challenges, or discusssuccessful and unsuccessful strategies that have already been tried. It's alsoimportant to establish the family's level of knowledge about the process.Many families, especially early in a child's education, are not trained inspecial education and may need more information on the purpose andprocess.

IDEA requires that the IEP team include someone who is knowledgeableand can commit resources from the school or district (34 C.F.R. § 300.344).Without knowledge of the law, the team members have unanswered ques-tions as to how to proceed or what can be included in the student's plan.

According to federal law, at least one team member must have the abilityto interpret the instructional implications of any assessments (34 C.F.R. §300.308). These staff members often work with assessments that use stan-dard scores; some teachers and parents typically do not. Standard scoresalone do not help with understanding instructional implications. Reportingstandard scores can be irrelevant if the scores are not accompanied by anexplanation of how they relate to a student's strengths and areas of focus.

At least one team member must be knowledgeable about general (e.g.,standard course of study) and special education curriculum (34 C.F.R. §300.344). It is critical to have someone in attendance that is familiar withgrade level curriculum to ensure grade level curricular standards areaddressed in the program.

Note. IEP = individualized education program; LEA = local education agency; IDEA = Individuals With Disabilities EducationAct (2006). Related services personnel include such specialists as psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational andphysical therapists.

pose and process leads to a successfulIEP meeting with no surprises.

Sam's previous IEP meetings hadbeen a whirlwind for Ms.Payton. She had not understoodwhat some members were talk-ing about and felt that it wasnot her place to stop the meetingand ask. At this IEP meeting,however, the agenda indicatedthat people with essential knowl-edge would explain how each ofthem could support developingSam's IEP. After a full discussionof Sam's assessment results, theteam understood where Sam wasdevelopnientally and were ableto plan what should come next.

everyone would have a chance toshare in the development ofSam's IEP. Everyone's opinionwould be respected. Ms. Oakleydiscussed the McCill ActionPlanning System (MAPS), a typeof person-centered planning(Vandercook, York, & Forest,1989). Ms. Payton felt that shewas a part of the team and wascomfortable sharing her thoughtsand concerns. She also felt goodabout the focus on Sam's currentand future special educationneeds.

#5: Essential Knov\^ledge

As a whole, the members of the IEPteam must have knowledge essential to

completing the IEP—including studentstrengths and challenges, governinglaw (i.e., IDEA, state regulations), howto interpret assessment data, and cur-ricular requirements (i.e., standardcourse of study): see Table 2. Teachers(i.e., general and special education),related service personnel, and parentsshould all understand the basic pur-pose and process of the IEP. All mem-bers of the team, including parents,should understand what information isincluded on an IEP (e.g., assessmentresults, input from all team members);this information could be presented asa part of the pre-meeting activities.Understanding the purpose and theprocess "levels the playing field" for allteam members. Knowing the basic pur-


Ms. Payton was excited to seethat his assessment results,along with teacher and parentknowledge, could be turned intoIEP goals. She was learning more

an equal level and allow them to sharetheir vast yet different knowledge ofthe student and what will enhance heror his academic and developmentalskills. Strong communication promotes

Strong communicationpromotes productive meetings.

about the process and, in turn,felt she was becoming a betteradvocate for her son.

#6: Limit Jargon

The field of education is widely knownfor its use of jargon, especially in theform of acronyms. Although educatorsand related service personnel may beused to this type of language, parentsare probably not. In order to create acollaborative team environment, jargonshould be either left out of IEP meet-ings or explained. The use of jargonnegates clarity during an IEP meeting.One way to help parents understandjargon is to provide a one-page, quickreference guide in addition to explain-ing the meanings of various acronymsor terminology.

Ms. Payton had felt like she wasunder water when team mem-bers used jargon at previous IEPmeetings. She did not knowwhat acronyms such as LEA andFAPE meant. After the IEP meet-ing where the ground rules stat-ed not to use jargon, Ms. Paytonfelt like a whole new world wasopen to her. She understoodwhat the team was talkingabout, which increased herknowledge about Sam's IEP andthe special education process.Finally, she felt like a contribut-ing member of the team. Afterthe IEP was implemented usingeffective communication tools,Sam began to enjoy school andhis behaviors diminished.

Final Ilioughts

Effective open communication tech-niques can place IEP team members on

productive meetings, which in turnproduce holistic IEPs that fully addressthe student's needs. When IEP teammembers communicate well, the IEPbecomes a useful tool for guidinginstruction and monitoring progress(i.e., assessment). The tips and strate-gies provided in this article can helpfoster a positive team atmosphere thatprovides a foundation for successfulIEP meetings.

ReferencesBugaj. S. J. (2000). Avoiding the pitfalls of

failing to implement an IEP: Tips for sec-ondary school principals and guidancecounselors. National Association ofSecondary School Principals, NASSPBulletin, 84, 41-46. http://dx.doi.org/lO. 1177/019263650008461307

Capizzi, A. M. (2008). From assessment toannual goals: Engaging a decision-mak-ing process in writing measurable IEPs.TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41 [I],18-21.

Claes, C , Van Hove, G., Vandevelde S., vanLoon, J., & Schalock, R. L. (1989).Person-centered planning: Analysis ofresearch and effectiveness. Intellectualand Developmental Disabilities, 48,432-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.6.432

Cornell University Employment and Dis-ability Institute. (2011). What is person-centered planning? Retrieved fromhttp://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/pcp/index.html

Etscheidt, S. (2007). The excusai provisionof the IDEA 2004: Streamlining procedur-al compliance or prejudicing rights ofstudents with disabilities. PreventingSchool Failure, 51, 13-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.4.13-18

Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting:Perceptions of parents of students whoreceive special education services.Preventing School Failure, 53, 8-14.http://dx.doi.Org/10.3200/PSFL.53.l.8-14

Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006).Parents' rights in special education: The

readability of procedural safeguards.Exceptional Children, 72, 497-510.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions:Collaboration skills for school profession-als (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Heward, W. L. (2009). Exceptional children:An introduction to special education (9"'ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonMerrill Prentice Hall.

IDEA Regulations, 34 C.FR. § 300 (2006).Individual With Disabilities EducationAct, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2006).

JDL & Associates. (1999). Essential facilita-tion for individualized education programmeetings. Boston, MA: Interaction Insti-tute for Social Change.

Jung, L. A., Gomez, C, Baird, S. M., &Keramidas, C. L. G. (2008). Designingintervention plans: Bridging the gapbetween individualized education pro-grams and implementation. TEACHINGExceptional Children, 41(1), 26-33.

Kamens, M. W. (2002). Learning to writeIEPs: A personalized, reflective approachfor preservice teachers. Intervention inSchool and Clinic, 40, 76-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512040400020201

O'Conner, E. A., & Wyasik, A. E. (2008).Using information from an early inter-vention program to enhance literacygoals on the individualized educationprogram (IEP). Reading Psychology, 28,133-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710600846902

Panages, J. M. (2003). Write IEP goals fortrue learning. ASH A Leader, 8(21), 34.

Staples, K., & Diliberto, J. A. (2010).Guidelines for successful parent involve-ment: Working with parents of studentswith disabilities. TEACHING ExceptionalChildren, 42(6), 58-63.

Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M.(1989). The McGill action planning sys-tem (MAPS): A strategy for building thevision. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 14,205-215.

Jennifer A. Diliberto (North Carolina CEC),Assistant Professor of Special Education,Greensboro College, North Carolina. DeniseBrewer (North Carolina CEC) AssistantProfessor of Family and Consumer Sciences,Reich College of Education, AppalachianState University, Boone, North Carolina.

Address correspondence concerning this arti-cle to Jennifer Diliberto, Greensboro College,815 West Market Street, Greensboro. NC27401 (e-mail: [email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 44,No. 4, pp. 30-37.

Copyright 2012 CEC.


Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Inclusion - Johns Hopkins University