Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TURABO
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
TEACHERS’ AND PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES OF INCLUSION
IN THE ELL REGULAR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSROOM:
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY
by
Jeanette Carrasquillo
DISSERTATION
Presented as Requirement for the Doctoral Degree in Curriculum,
Teaching and Learning Environments: English
Gurabo, Puerto Rico
April, 2016
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TURABO
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
The dissertation of Jeanette Arroyo Carrasquillo was reviewed and approved by
the members of the Dissertation Committee. The Doctoral Academic Requirements
Compliance Form with the signatures of the committee members is deposited in the
Registrar and at the Center of Graduate Studies & Research of the Universidad del
Turabo.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dr. Ángela Candelario
Universidad del Turabo
Director of the Dissertation Committee
Dr. Edgardo Rosaly Manfredy
Universidad del Turabo
Member
Dr. Sharon Grau Burgos
Universidad del Turabo
Member
© Copyright 2016
Jeanette Carrasquillo Arroyo. All Rights Reserved.
iv
TEACHERS’ AND PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES OF INCLUSION
IN THE ELL REGULAR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSROOM:
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY
by
Jeanette Carrasquillo
Dr. Ángela Candelario Fernández
Chair Dissertation Committee
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study will be to investigate whether the inclusion of high
school students with different disabilities in the English language learning regular
classroom has been effective. It will research the factors that can serve as obstacles, or in
turn, facilitate the inclusion process. The research design will be a phenomenological
study involving an exploratory qualitative method. Qualitative research deals with
phenomena that is difficult or impossible to quantify such as meanings, beliefs,
perceptions and attributes, among others. This qualitative study will carry out in-depth
interviews (semi-structured) to gather the participants’ descriptions of their experience,
the participants’ written or oral self-report, or even their aesthetic expressions (art,
narratives, or poetry) that are optimal for collecting data on individuals’ personal
perspectives and experiences, particularly when sensitive topics such as inclusion are
explored. Three English-as-a-second-language teachers and three Special Education
v
teachers will be selected by the researcher using the judgment sampling employed when
only limited numbers of people can serve as primary data sources due to the nature of
research design, aims and objectives. This type of sampling method is sometimes called
purposive, selective or subjective sampling. The researcher will also interview three
randomly selected parents of disabled students whose children have been integrated into
the Special Education Program for at least three consecutive years. The researcher will
try to determine the degree of satisfaction they have had of their children’s inclusion
process and suggestions they might want to mention in order to improve inclusive
practices. This qualitative study will examine the opinions of the English teachers and
the Special Education teachers concerning the inclusion of disabled students in the
regular English classrooms. The interviews will portrayed the degree of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction teachers and parents have concerning the process of inclusion in the
English language learning classroom. This study will also contribute to the
improvement of inclusive practices in regular ELL classrooms by pointing out findings
regarding barriers or positive practices that might help to remarkably improve this
paradigm in Puerto Rico’s public school system.
vi
DEDICATION
I once said to my students that setting goals and pursuing them was an essential
part of our existence. When goals are met, it is like reaching the top of an enormous
mountain and knowing that your efforts were worthy. Goals have always been part of my
life. I had to overcome many difficulties to reach this final stage but I am thankful to
many extraordinary people because I am finally seeing the light. I dedicate this work to
those who have always been there for me and have given me the tools and knowledge to
complete this task. I dedicate this work to the following people for making the difference
and challenging me until the end.
To my hard-working and dedicated mother Brunilda Arroyo, for her endless
efforts to provide what I need.
To my students, who witnessed my endless efforts to comply with my job and my
studies.
To my friend Dr. Sharon Grau for her enthusiastic and unconditional support.
To my son Raúl and my daughter Jessy for understanding my need for silence and my
mood swings.
To my friend Eugene Negron for being by my side and pushing me to complete this
research.
To my Dissertation Committee for their guidance and constant feedback.
And to God, for listening to my prayers and helping me accomplish want I began
some years ago.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Investigating topics of this nature is not a task that can be carried out without the
collaboration of people that facilitate the process. I am deeply grateful to my
Committee’s President, Dr. Ángela Candelario, for her suggestions and support. I
appreciate the collaboration of my great friend, Dr. Sharon Grau, for helping me
throughout the process and for providing her outstanding ideas. I am also very grateful
for the guidance and important input provided by Dr. Edgardo Rosaly. His outstanding
knowledge and expertise in the Special Education Program field has been of extreme
benefit for my study. I am also thankful for the cooperation that I received from the
teachers, parents and administrative personnel that made this investigation possible.
Teamwork is and will always be the foundation of successful endeavors. My
accomplishments are a result of it.
viii
Table of Contents
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..xiv
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………..xv
List of Appendixes…………………………………………………………………….xvi
Chapter One …………………………………………………………………………….1
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………………..4
The Problem…………………………………………………………………………….14
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………18
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………20
Theories on Learning………………………………………………………………...…21
Constructivist Learning Theory………………………………………………...21
Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory…………………………………..22
Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory………………………………………...........23
Jean Lave’s Situated Learning………………………………………………………….24
Legal Framework…………………………………………………………………...…..24
ix
Federal Laws……………………………………………………………………………25
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001………………………………….25
Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) of December 10, 2015…………………..27
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement (IDEA) Act of 2004.…………27
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Educational Improvement Act
of 2006………………………………………………………………………...28
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990…………………………..….29
Rehabilitation Act of 1973……………………………………………….…....30
Assistive Technology Act of 2004………………………………………….....31
State Laws………………………………………………………………………...........31
Integral Services for People with Disabilities Act, Act No. 51 of
June 7, 1996………………………………………………………………...…31
Puerto Rico Department of Education Special Act, Act No. 149 of July 15,
1999………………………………………………………………………...….32
Assistive Technology Program Act, Act No. 264 of August 31, 2000……..…33
Bill of Rights for Persons with Disabilities, Act No. 238 of
August 31, 2004…………………………………………………………...…..33
x
Puerto Rico Education System Inclusion Program Act, Act No. 104 of August
26, 2005…………………………………………………………………………….33
Vocational and Career Evaluation for Students with Disabilities Act, Act No.
263 of December 13, 2006…………………………………………………………….34
Policies of the Department of Education of Puerto Rico……………………………….34
Description of the Job: Teachers’ Responsibilities (DE-16)…………………..34
Regulation for the Certification of the Teaching Staff of Puerto Rico (January
25, 2012)………………………………………………………………….…………...35
English Program Curricular Framework………………………………………………38
Circular Letter 8-2013-2014: Public Policy Concerning the Curricular Content
of the English Program for all the Public Elementary, Intermediate and High
Schools……………………………………………………………………...…………39
Research Questions…………………………………………………………………......41
Justification………………………………………………………………………...…...42
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………………........43
Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………………..48
Possible Contributions to the Field………………………………………………...…..49
xi
Overview…………………………………………………………………………...…..50
Chapter Two……………………………………………………………………………51
Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………....51
Inclusion……………………………………………………………………………......51
History of Inclusion……………………………………………………………….........55
Changes in Paradigm……………………………………………………………….......57
Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion…………………………………………...60
English Language Learning and Inclusion…………………………………………......62
Research Findings……………………………………………………………………...65
Overview…………………………………………………………………………….....75
Methodology……………………………………………………………………………75
Research Methodology…………………………………………………………………75
Research Philosophy……………………………………………………………………76
Research Approach…………………………………………………………………….78
Research Design……………………………………………………………………….78
Population (Sampling)…………………………………………………………………79
Qualitative Research…………………………………………………………………..80
xii
Participants…………………………………………………………………………….81
Instruments…………………………………………………………………………….81
Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement………………………………………82
Procedure………………………………………………………………………………83
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….........84
Risks and Benefits of the Study………………………………………………….........85
Overview……………………………………………………………………………...85
Chapter Four………………………………………………………………………….86
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..86
Participants and Categories Identified……………………………………………….87
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………..90
Analysis of semi-structured interviews to ESL Teachers…………………………..90
Analysis of semi-structured interviews to Special Education teachers…………...1133
Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews to Parents of Students with Disabilities...129
Aesthetic Interpretations of the Inclusion Paradigm………………………………140
Overview…………………………………………………………………………..142
xiii
Chapter Five 143
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations………………………………..143
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………..144
Category I: General perceptions and effectiveness of the inclusion process……...144
Category II: Resources and support system……………………………………….146
Category III: Teaching-learning processes………………………………………..147
Category IV: Barriers precluding the success of the inclusive process…………...148
Category V: Suggestions to improve the inclusive process in the ELL 149
Classroom…………………………………………………………………………149
Implications……………………………………………………………………….1150
Recommendations………………………………………………………………...151
Recommendations for Research………………………………………………….154
References………………………………………………………………………...1555
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Teachers’ Artistic Interpretation of Inclusion………………………140
Figure 2: Parents’ Interpretation of Inclusion………………………………....141
xv
List of Tables
Table 1: Requirements for the Certification of a Secondary English Teacher
in Puerto Rico…………………………………………………………36
Table 2: Requirements for the Certification of a Special Education Teacher
(K-12) in Puerto Rico…………………………………………………37
Table 3: Teachers’ Demographic Information…………………………………89
Table 4: Parents’ Demographic Information…………………………………..89
xvi
List of Appendixes
Appendix A: IRB Evaluation/Approval ........................................................................175
Appendix B: Invitation Letter for Participants ..............................................................177
Appendix C: Informative Sheet for English Teachers ..................................................179
Appendix D: Informative Sheet for Parents and Special Education Teachers ..............181
Appendix E: DEPR Letter of Authorization of Investigation .......................................182
Appendix F: ESL Teachers’ Interview Protocol ...........................................................184
Appendix G: Special Education Teachers’ Interview Protocol .....................................188
Appendix H: Parents’ Interview Protocol .....................................................................193
Appendix I: Proofreader’s Certification ……………………………………………...198
1
Chapter One
Introduction
Puerto Rico currently receives funds for students that belong to the Special
Education Program and is supposed to provide all the necessary accommodations
according to the guidelines provided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) originally enacted by Congress in 1975. The IDEA Act requires that students be
placed in the least restrictive environment; that is, in the regular classrooms along with
their non-disabled peers. Regular classroom teachers must be planning their classes
addressing their students’ differences. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires
teachers to differentiate instruction when planning using the standards and expectations
provided for each grade. The No Child Left Behind Act was carefully reevaluated and
has become the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which was signed by President
Barak Obama on December 10, 2015. Schools are supposed to be inclusive.
In Puerto Rico, disabled students are placed in regular classrooms but receive
class in a special resource classroom with the Special Education teacher assigned. This is
one of the least restrictive environments in which they can be placed because not all of
the students are placed in these classrooms. In these classrooms, the Spanish and Math
skills are reinforced. English is scarcely supported in these special classrooms and this
subject is then primarily limited to what the students grasp in the regular ELL classroom.
Most of the time, this situation places all the responsibility concerning the learning of this
subject on the regular teacher. ESL teachers have the obligation of helping their students
learn the skills devised for each grade and their groups of students are formed
heterogeneously most of the time. This means that they have to reteach skills when
2
students confront difficulties, aside from differentiating learning, providing various
approaches to account for their students’ different learning styles, and working with
disabled students that require other approaches. This task is arduous and time-consuming.
A great amount of ESL teachers in Puerto Rico work without the help and resources that
some of the students with special needs might require. Real inclusive classrooms are the
ones that support and value differences and do not tag disabled students or separate them
to provide additional support. Therefore, it is time to deal with the improvement of the
environment in which these students are placed and provide all the needed support that
teachers require to carry out their work efficiently. All the support needed must be
provided in the inclusive classroom, and not in external classrooms that do not consider
the imperious need in a global world of learning of a second language known as the
universal language of communication and commercialization. The perspectives of
teachers and parents on this phenomenon vary. It is a priority of this study to find out
what their perspectives on this topic are. The main purpose is to deeply understand their
points of view and gather information to provide positive feedback and suggestions on
how to improve the inclusion process in the English Language Learning (ELL) regular
classroom.
The inclusion process in the ELL classroom has not been studied sufficiently in
Puerto Rico. Years have passed since the ESL teachers in Puerto Rico have received
students with disabilities in their classroom. In the year 2012, the Department of
Education of Puerto Rico passed an official regulation titled “Reglamento de
Certificación del Personal Docente de Puerto Rico” [Puerto Rico Teaching Personnel
Certification Regulation]. This document lists the requirements for the certification of
3
English and Special Education teachers. English teachers to be certified are not required
to take courses that prepare them to work with students with special needs. Special
Education teachers are well prepared and receive a complete preparation to deal with
students with disabilities. The online catalogs of the University of Puerto Rico (Humacao
campus) and the University of the Sacred Heart [of Puerto Rico] offer no courses on
teaching students with special needs in the list of courses required for a Bachelor’s degree
in the Teaching of Secondary English. The Universidad del Turabo and Interamerican
University only provide one course to help English teachers understand students with
disabilities. The Universidad del Turabo offers the course SPED 315, titled Teaching
Exceptional Children, and the Interamerican University offers the course EDUC 2870,
titled “Población Estudiantil Excepcional” [Exceptional Student Population]. Based on
these findings, it can be stated that many regular English teachers are not trained to work
with students with special needs.
Studies of teachers’ perspectives of the inclusion process in Puerto Rico have
been carried out in subjects other than English and most of them at the elementary level.
Attitudes and Perspectives towards the inclusion process tend to differ depending on the
role of the participant. Teachers of the Special Education Program may have different
opinions than the parents and the English regular classroom teachers.
All of the definitions provided of inclusion refer to the state of being respected,
supported and valued. It focuses on and considers the necessities of every student and the
supply of the conditions necessary for each one to attain his or her full potential.
Inclusion refers to the schools’ philosophies, practices and affairs that are necessary to
support a diverse school population. Considering the increase in the amount of students
4
that belong to the Special Education Program, the fact that each one of them learns
differently and comes from distinct households with unique experiences can represent an
enormous challenge. The voices of both teachers and parents must be heard in order to
understand this phenomenon thoroughly.
Background of the Problem
The difficulties in ensuring the best educational environment for students with
limitations have been, and still are, a problem for parents and teachers. This section of
the study will deal with the background of this problem in the public education system of
Puerto Rico and in ELL regular classrooms. Every day, second language teachers in
Puerto Rico receive in their classrooms students that belong to the Special Education
Program. Even though the Special Education Program was not supported by any state
law, the Department of Education began to provide services for this population in 1958
when eighteen students with slight mental retardation were attended in the Luis Muñoz
Rivera School in Bayamon. This initiative had an amazing reception and began to grow
extremely fast in enrollment and disability categories. Due to this growth, the
Department of Education had to recruit special personnel schooled in these disabilities
and assign funds for this purpose. (Díaz, 2015, p. 2) The Special Education Program
officially initiated on July 22, 1977 when Act No. 21 (first statute enacted by the
Government of Puerto Rico) was approved by the Legislature of Puerto Rico. The
amount of students belonging to this population has duplicated in recent years and it is
still ascending vertiginously. According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
Puerto Rico is the jurisdiction of the United States that has the highest percentage (97%)
of children served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when
5
compared to other states that are serving greater population of students during the years
1990 to 2012. The Annual Report of Educational Statistics created by the Institute of
Statistics reported that in 2001 there were 65,576 students that belonged to this program.
In the year 2013, the amount went up to 130,212. During the year 2014, Professor Doris
Zapata Padilla, Associate Secretary of Special Education in Puerto Rico reported in the
magazine El Mundo that the amount of Special Education students was 159,000 in
December 2013. This amount represents a thirty-four percent of the total student
population, ten percent of which has significant disabilities and ninety percent were
integrated in the regular classrooms. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
was signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975. This statute is also known as
Public Law 94-142. According to the article “EHA - Education for All Handicapped
Children” written in the Special Education News on October 20, 2015, this act was
designed to give the parents the exclusive method to seek remedies to any obstacles in a
fair education for their disabled children. This statute eventually became the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act in 1990, which may be called IDEA. The article also
states that IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (EHA) from 1970 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA
and changed the title to IDEA (Public Law No. 94-142). Overall, the goal of IDEA is to
provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students
who do not have a disability. This act was fundamental for the incorporation of Special
Education students in Puerto Rico’s school system and it provides the funding necessary
to offer these students the treatment they require. The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) requires schools to deliver individualized or special education for
6
children with qualifying disabilities. Puerto Rico receives federal funds for the Special
Education Program to educate and safeguard these students’ rights.
English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers, aside from dealing with learning
theories and diverse policies, must also deal with the accommodations of the Special
Education students. Jennifer York, Michael F. Giangreco, Tern Vandercook, and Cathy
Macdonald in Susan Stainback & William Stainback (1992), exposed in their
introduction to “Integrating Support Personnel in the Inclusive Classroom” :
Although classroom teachers have a range of curricular and instructional skills, educating
some students in inclusive classrooms requires contributions from professionals
representing a variety of disciplines. The need for the services of support personnel in
inclusive classrooms is not a negative reflection on the adequacy of classroom teachers.
Instead, it reminds us that no single individual, no matter what her or his discipline or
experience, has the ability to meet the range of diverse student needs that may be present
in a heterogeneous classroom. (p. 101).
Teachers face groups of students with varied disabilities and needs, and are
required to respond and plan to meet this diversity. One of the most outstanding facts is
that teachers are not required to take courses to deal with students with an amalgam of
disabilities as corroborated in the 2014-2016 catalogs of known universities and by the
list of requirements to be certified as a secondary level English teacher provided by the
Department of Education. Regular English classroom teachers are not adequately
prepared to deal with all types of impairments. According to Joyce, B., & Weil, M.
(1986) “parents fear that general education teachers do not have the training and skills to
accommodate special needs students in a general education classroom setting.” It is
7
indicated that professional training and supportive services can help address these
concerns that many parents and teachers have nowadays. Many teachers do not have
sufficient time to modify their classes to attend to all these particular needs of disabled
students, and this can be harmful for them and interfere with classroom productivity. The
Department of Education requires regular classroom teachers to deal with a situation that
they probably do not know how to handle. ESL teachers have to deal with the gifted, the
talented, the disabled, students with legal problems, students with deficiencies, and those
with disciplinary situations among many other conditions. The Department of Education
recently passed Circular Letter 37-2013-2014, titled “Política Pública sobre la
Organización Escolar y Requisitos de Graduación de las Escuelas de la Comunidad
Elementales y Secundarias del Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico” [Public
Policy on School Organization and Graduation Requirements of Elementary and
Secondary Community Schools of the Department of Education of Puerto Rico], which
requires regular teachers to have a minimum of 25 students per group, including disabled
students. The inclusive practice does not set a limit to the amount of disabled students
that can partake of a regular classroom. These circumstances are difficult when there is
only one teacher working with so many different cases and particularities. The available
time for class-planning is not sufficient, considering the diversity in the classroom and all
the paper work required.
Since the 1980s, incorporating students in the least restrictive environment was
called integration. Integrated classrooms are also known as mainstreamed classrooms.
Initially, children with disabilities were often placed in special education classrooms,
making it a challenge for any teacher to deal with their difficulties aptly. In the 1980s,
8
the mainstreaming model was used more often as a result of the requirement to place
children in the least restrictive environment. (Clearinghouse, 2003) Awilda Aponte
Roque (Secretary of Public Instruction in Puerto Rico) created a Special Education
manual called “Manual de Procedimientos de Educación Especial” [Special Education
Proceedings Manual], which introduced the concepts least restrictive environment,
register, placement, special education teacher and so on, (Díaz, 2015). This was the
beginning of the English regular classroom teachers’ need for reinventing and creating
new ways of dealing with this integrated population with special and varied necessities.
Regular classroom teachers are now required interventions and the use of varied
strategies for the diversity of students they receive. The State Wide Advocacy Network’s
document concerning the inclusive movement and standardized testing specifies that Title
I and Goals 2000 require the unification of all programs, materials of instruction and
standards for all students including limited English proficient students, disabled students
and others students at risk. This document also points out that section 504 of the
Vocational Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination of students due to their disabilities
and specifies that schools must provide equal services to these students just as provided
to the ones in regular classroom. The reauthorization of the IDEA act demands that
exclusion of these students from the mainstream, standardized testing evaluations and
participating of the regular school programming be extremely limited. IDEA also
requires that the disability of the student who participates in regular classrooms be
specified clearly in the Individual Educational Program (IEP), which is called PEI in
Puerto Rico. The committee called “Comité de Programación y Ubicación”
[Programming and Placement Committee] (COMPU) in Puerto Rico, which makes
9
decisions concerning the IEP, must significantly justify any decision related to removing
students from participating in the regular classes, academic activities and standardized
evaluations.
According to the Warnock’s Report of 1978, the end of the educational enterprise
is that all children, notwithstanding what problems they might encounter in their
developmental processes, must continually find ways to meet their diverse needs in order
to fulfill their maximum potential. It is implied that they must find the adequate
educational response that favor their maximum global development, including their social
and cultural integration. The concepts integrated and mainstreamed are the same, but
they are different from the term inclusion. “Inclusion is 100% placement in general
education, whereas in mainstreaming, a student with special needs is educated partially in
a special education program, but to the maximum extent possible is educated in the
general education program”. (Idol, 1997, p.384-385) The school system has experienced
a change or reform from segregation (mid-1800s) to integration (1970s until 1980s), and
now moving on to inclusion (1990s). Differentiating these terms can help understand the
reforms carried out or in schedule during these last decades. These three notions
(segregation, integration, and inclusion) must be clarified and defined to understand
clearly the problem at hand. The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) (2015)
provides the following definitions for these terms:
Segregation- Disabled people of all ages and/or those learners with “Special Educational
Needs” labels who are placed in any form of segregated education setting. This tends to
force disabled people to lead a separate life.
10
Integration- Disabled people of all ages and/or those learners with “Special Educational
Needs” labels who are placed in mainstream education settings with some adaptations
and resources, but on condition that the disabled person and/or the learner with “Special
Educational Needs” labels can fit in with pre-existing structures, attitudes, and an
unaltered environment.
Inclusion- Disabled people of all ages and/or those learners with “Special Educational
Needs” labels who are educated in mainstream education settings alongside their
nondisabled peers, where there is a commitment to removing all barriers to the full
participation of everyone as equally valued and unique individuals.
Inclusive Practice- Inclusive practice can be defined as attitudes, approaches and
strategies that we employ to ensure that no learners are excluded or isolated from the
education on offer. In other words, we all work to create a culture where all learners feel
welcome, accepted, safe, valued, and confident that they will get the right support to
assist them in the development of their talent and achievement of their goals. (p. 1)
The inclusive reform movement imposes new demands on education. Stainback,
S. and Stainback, W. (1996) define inclusion as the placement for all students with
disabilities in general education classrooms with necessary support given within these
classrooms. Every intervention or accommodation is in the regular classroom. This
movement encompasses cultural, social, gender, linguistic, racial, mental and physical
differences among others. Lewis and Doorlag (1995) consider that disabled students are
integrated provided they spend any part of the school day with general class peers in
common instructional or social activities with additional instruction and support from a
special educator. This means that part of the student’s educational experience is given in
11
the special education classroom, and some in a general education setting. Friend and
Bursuck (1996) state that mainstreaming occurs when students can meet “traditional
academic expectations with minimal assistance” (p.2). This indicates that students
require few or minor adaptations for success in the mainstream placement. Laski (1991)
remarks that “all children with learning problems, whether they be ‘special education
students,’ ‘at-risk’ students, or otherwise regarded as disadvantaged in schooling, belong
in regular classroom environments.” (p. 412)
Act No. 104 of August 2005: a statute to create an Inclusion Program of the
Educational System of Puerto Rico, it describes the Inclusion program as one that
considers individual differences in a way that can be adjusted to each group of teachers
and students at all educational levels that will cause impact in their social lives. The
greatest benefit will be in the following areas: employment, independence, auto
sufficiency, and social integration.
Besides the continuous increase of this population of students and the regular
English teachers’ lack of preparation, now there is an actual shifting to an all-
encompassing reform called inclusive classrooms. This reformation of inclusiveness in
the 90s demanded in ESL classrooms will require a compromise from the administrators
and personnel that is knowledgeable in these matters. This strategy is related to the
reformulation of regular education, to make the general education system more
comprehensive and diverse. (Vislie, 1995)
Some of the reforms needed occur in the curriculum, in the collaboration of
specialized personnel (Special Educators that provide support for the particular needs of
these students), of technology and any other cooperative grouping that helps regular ESL
12
teachers accomplish the objectives set and to improve the educational outcomes of
children with disabilities. This is not a matter of providing the less restrictive setting to
the disabled students but to provide what is needed for their success in the regular
classroom. Inclusion has been researched and studied for decades, though reported lightly
in the public with early studies on heterogeneous and homogeneous ability groupings.
(Stainback & Stainback, 1989) Inclusion rejects the use of special schools or classrooms
that are very popular in school system. The classrooms that are very common in the
public school system in Puerto Rico are used to separate students with disabilities from
students without disabilities. In these classrooms, Spanish and Math skills are reinforced.
The special education students also receive various therapies depending on their
impairment. Regular classroom teachers must assist children with specific learning
disabilities, speech or language impairments, mental retardation, emotional disturbance,
multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, visual impairments,
autism, combined deafness and blindness and cognitive problems. Physical, hearing,
speech and language therapies are the most common. Psychological therapies are also
given and some students also require visual aids. The most common disabilities found in
our students are the ones related to learning, reading and cognitive matters. Teachers are
required to use various teaching methods to promote learning, including intensive
individualized instruction, problem-solving assignments, and small-group work. The
workload of the ESL teacher is astonishing. Connie Titone (2005) of the Villanova
University reported that one of the major obstacles for the past ten years to successful
inclusion has been the lack of effective preparation for teachers.
13
Resistance to inclusion appears largely to be based on two assumptions. The first
assumption is that inclusion means a student with a disability educated with nondisabled
peers. This exceptionally narrow vision of inclusion, perpetuated by many education
professionals, leaves out other vulnerable groups and provides the opportunity to create
reasons not to include children based on educational needs. The second is that
educational commodities such as teacher time and attention, tangible resources and
physical space are at a minimum in many schools, thus facilitating the perception that
students with additional educational needs take more than their share leaving others with
less than they need. In the current political and educational climate the need for resources
has never been greater.” (Braunsteir and Mariano-Lapidus, 2014, p. 37)
In addition to the assumptions mentioned above, ESL teachers deal with second
language acquisition concerns. This is a process and it develops over varied periods of
time depending on numerous factors such as: life experience, literacy in their native
language (L1), family issues, anxiety, motivation, culture, health, personal needs,
instruction, environment, community and so on. These factors can influence the time
taken to learn a second language. This process of acquiring a second language can be
extremely difficult if other variables besides the language barrier come into play. The
students that are part of the mainstream face these factors and the ones that are part of the
special education program are facing these factors too, plus an additional one: their
disability.
CAPELL’s (Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language
Learners) handbook for English Language Learners and Special Education (2011)
establishes that when a student is not proficient in English and is experiencing an unusual
14
amount of academic difficulties, it can be challenging to determine whether the difficulty
branches from the language difference or from a true disability that can have an adverse
impact on education that would require the provision of special education and related
services. The school personnel may have difficulties determining what exactly the cause
of the student’s difficulties is. The final result expected in this teaching-learning process
is that the students receive appropriate services and the best chance for academic success
and better life conditions.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), states who accept
public funds for education must provide special education to qualifying children with
disabilities. Specific guidelines are provided to deal with these students. One of the
relevant ideas is that education must be designed to meet the needs of the individual child
with a disability. Education must prepare the child for further education (vocational
schools, college, universities…) or to live and work independently depending on their
disability. Education must occur in the least restrictive environment and requires schools
to take a child’s disability into account when implementing discipline because many of
the students’ attention span is brief and tend to be distracted easily.
The Problem
Having visualized the importance of the globalization of the Special Education
Program’s inclusion movement, there is a need for concerning teachers, administrators
and community in general towards the need for improving this program in the schools of
Puerto Rico. The purpose of this section is to clarify the problem confronted by ESL
teachers and parents with the inclusive process in ELL classrooms in Puerto Rico. The
educational system has been moving towards this model for many years. Reynolds and
15
Walberg (1987) cite critics that say “unless major structural changes are made, the field
of special education is destined to become more of a problem, and less of a solution in
providing education for children who have special needs”. (p. 391)
In that respect, the World Conference on Special Needs Education carried out in
Salamanca in 1994, with the adoption of the Salamanca Statement and Framework for
Action on Special Needs Education, represents one of the events that definitely sets the
policy agenda for inclusive education on a global basis. (UNESCO, 1994). According to
the UNESCO document, inclusive education, which challenges all exclusionary policies
and practices in education, is based on a growing international consensus of the right of
all children to a common education in their locality regardless of their background,
attainment or disability, and aims to provide quality education for learners and a
community-based education for all.
The increase of the Special Education population in our schools requires that this
relevant issue be set in schedule. According to the statements made by the Associate
Secretary of Special Education in Puerto Rico, Doris Zapata Padilla in December 2013 to
The Wall Street Journal, writing in El Mundo the amount of special education students
ascended to 159,000. This amount represents 34 percent of the total students enrolled in
the public school system. In 2014, there were 160,521 students registered in this program.
All teachers in Puerto Rico must acknowledge that with the increase of incidence of
disabilities in the student population, this is and will be a circumstance all teachers must
struggle or deal with every year. An outstanding amount of parents want their children
with special needs to attend a regular school and to be treated like regular students. The
lack of teachers’ preparation, the need for special support needed required by these
16
students, the scarce technological equipment available to greatly improve their
opportunities of success, an absence of a proper identification and placement process, and
most of all, a necessity for an early, methodical, and appropriately individualized
assistance to children who are at risk for underperforming when they are compared to
appropriate grade or age-level standards and expectations. This approach, called
Response to Intervention (RTI), can avoid the erroneous incorporation of a student in the
Special Education Program if he or she only exhibiting low academic achievement. This
constant screening may help determine whether the student has low academic
achievement or it is a more serious matter, such as specific learning disabilities (SLD)
that require additional testing and interventions by professionals. The need for this early
intervention was reported since 1997 when the amount of special education students was
escalating. According to Díaz (2015), several studies pointed out the importance of this
early intervention, and due to this fact, the IDEA act stipulated the necessity of early,
primary intervention. In the year 2002, Honorable judge Sonia I. Vélez, declared a partial
judgment in the case Rosa Lydia Vélez et al. vs. Awilda Aponte Roque et al., K PE 80-
1738 (1987) (Aponte Roque was the Secretary of the Department of Education of Puerto
Rico back then) and made several stipulations that must be followed by the Department
of Education. Eleven clauses were provided in the synopsis of the critical aspects
provided in the executive summary of the case provided by the Department of Education
on February 13, 2002. These clauses are related to eligibility processes, services, student
evaluation, elimination of architectural barriers, transition services, and resolution of
disputes or complaints, among others. Puerto Rico’s public school system is not
complying with the law and is failing to provide the different services that must be
17
granted to this population. At present, The Department of Education is paying a penalty
of $10,000 daily allocated by court due to Rosa Lydia Velez’ case, which began in 1980
and it is presently active and unsolved, and the plaintiffs did not agree with the decision.
Besides an increase in the population, the inclusion of these students in ELL
regular classrooms requires that universities prepare teachers to understand how these
students learn. It also workshops that facilitate the creation of a variety of exercises that
help incorporate differentiated learning in the ELL regular classroom. Puerto Rico
passed Act No. 104: Law to create an Puerto Rico Education System Inclusion Program
in August 26, 2005. This law clearly states in its second section that the Department of
Education will offer courses to the teachers at least once a year to help them deal with
diversity. This article also states that teachers will receive workshops at least once each
semester to help them be acquainted with, value and treat these special education
students. The Secretary of the Department of Education, pursuant to the law, must
identify personnel that will offer orientations to the teachers on how to integrate inclusive
strategies in their courses. These stipulations must be enforced. Most of these students
are integrated in regular ELL classrooms but there is a need for proper placement and
acknowledgement that some of these students require individualized instruction or
controlled environments to help them attain success.
Regular classroom ESL teachers are teaching the curriculum and Special
Education teachers are practically remedying the instruction given, similar to what
academic tutors do. The problem is worsening as people are being recruited to teach
English with no knowledge of the educational process and the English curriculum. Many
of the Special Education teachers have minimum knowledge of the English curriculum
18
themselves. Students with serious attention span problems are not able to focus in
classrooms full of active peers. This is the setting that ESL teachers are encountering and
will encounter for many years to come. The limited time that teachers have to plan for
diversity is more than often used for other administrative purposes such as meetings and
external visits, among many other academic activities. Some of the basic questions
concerning this new paradigm are:
1. Do teachers change their teaching techniques to accommodate the needs of
diverse students?
2. How will the needs of all the students be met?
3. Are teachers willing to add additional workload and devote extra time to
assessment, team work and preparing new material in order to move towards
inclusion?
4. Does this shift of paradigm going on in the states, and therefore in Puerto Rico,
cause anxiety or stress on teachers creating the “burnout” effect?
5. Will teachers be able to work with all types of disabilities including disruptive
behavior and serious disorders?
6. Is inclusion possible?
7. What are the teachers’ perspectives on this issue?
8. What are the parents’ perspectives on this new paradigm?
9. Is inclusion possible with limited resources, especially human?
Purpose of the Study
Two quotes that cannot be left out concerning this matter are provided by Diane
Feinstein and Jim Jeffords (U.S. Senators). Feinstein stated: “No Child Left Behind’
19
requires states and school districts to ensure that all students are learning and are reaching
their highest potential. Special education students should not be left out of these
accountability mechanisms.” The second one is provided by Jim Jeffords, who states:
“We have a responsibility to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to receive a
high-quality education, from prekindergarten to elementary and secondary, to special
education, to technical and higher education and beyond.” ESL teachers have the
responsibility to help Special Education students reach their maximum potential. The
fact that the Department of Education must follow the guidelines to ensure that this
special education population is served appropriately is based on the Law.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the perspectives of teachers and parents
concerning the inclusion of special education students in the regular English classroom.
These people are in constant contact with these students and are aware of the daily
situations encountered in the classroom. What proceeds, then, is a phenomenological
study described as a non-interference of reality, an overview of what is really happening
in these school settings without interrupting or intervening with the actual situation; a
look of what is. A vivid narration of the teachers’ and parents’ experiences and their
daily interventions and practices with special education students will be annotated and
interpreted. The main focus is to gather feedback of their needs and bring together
information of what is really going on in ELL classrooms and how these educators and
parents feel and express themselves about this phenomenon that has been going on for so
many years, and which is currently on the spotlight.
20
Theoretical Framework
Theories, laws and official documents constitute a great foundation for any
educational investigation. There are various statutes concerning the areas of teaching
English as a second language and the Special Education Program as applied in Puerto
Rico. The English and the Special Education programs include many important
documents that guide their enforcement. This theoretical framework will review all the
documents and laws concerning the teaching of English and the Special Education
Program. The English and the Special Education policies will be studied to have a clear
idea of the guidelines that must be followed in the teaching of students with disabilities.
Besides official laws, learning and social cultural theories must be studied. Most of the
social theories stress that the interaction between developing people who are located in
the culture in which they live is essential for their healthy development. Most theories
understand that parents, caregivers, peers, and the culture in general are responsible for
the development of higher order cognitive functions required to be successful in the
school environment. Every human has rights, and non-discrimination is a principle
emphasized in international human rights law, in many treaties, and especially, in
educational policies and statutes.
21
Theories on Learning
Constructivist Learning Theory. The first question teachers usually ask
themselves is: How do students learn best? The constructivist learning theory states that
the best way to learn is by having students construct their own knowledge instead of
having someone construct it for them. According to this theory, learning is an active
process of creating meaning from different experiences and that students have different
learning styles and will learn best by trying to make sense of something on their own with
the teacher as a guide to help them. In this sense, prior knowledge, if correct, is
extremely beneficial for teachers to build on. The constructivist learning theory was
founded by Jean Piaget (1896-1980). He believed that knowledge was internalized by
learners through processes of accommodation and assimilation. Individuals construct new
knowledge from their experiences. This theory is associated with active learning or
learning by doing. The learners construct information and add new information to the
prior knowledge they possess. Kenneth Henson (2003) states the following:
Piaget’s theory allows teachers to view students as individual learners who add new
concepts to prior knowledge to construct, or build, understanding for themselves.
Teachers who use a learner-centered approach as a basis for their professional practices
incorporate the several dispositions. They provide experience-based educational
opportunities. These teachers also contemplate the learners’ individual qualities and
attitudes during curriculum planning. Educators allow learners’ insights to alter the
curriculum. They nourish and support learners’ curiosity and creativity. They also
involve learners’ emotions and create a learning environment in which students feel safe.
(p. 13).
22
The inclusion paradigm is a totally constructivist approach. Some of the
principles underlying this theory are: learning is searching for meaning, meaning requires
understanding from the wholes as well as the parts, teachers must understand how
students perceive the world, the purpose of the students’ learning is the construction of
meaning, and not just plain memorization.
Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory. Two major ideas attributed to Lev
Vygotsky are the need for social interaction and the potential of cognitive development a
child can attain in social interaction called the zone of proximal development (ZPD).
According to Vygotsky (1978), the zone of proximal development “is the distance
between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and
the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” (p.86) The role that interaction
plays in the educational process is undeniable. Vygotsky (1978) states:
Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social
level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and
then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to
logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as
actual relationships between individuals. (p.57)
The complete development of this zone depends on the social interaction with
peers and adults. This development is greater with social interaction than by being alone.
Relating this to language learning, the first utterances are an attempt of communication
with others, and after establishing contact with people, socializing, and communicating,
can children acquire vocabulary and learn to communicate effectively with others. Inner
23
voice or speech is also developed. Aside from Vygotsky’s theories, there are some others
that also relate to this research, like Albert Bandura’s social learning theory and Jean
Lave’s situated learning.
Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Bandura’s social learning theory
stresses the significance of observing and modeling behaviors of others. Bandura (1977)
states:
“Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people
had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do.
Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling. Students
observe their peers and the people that are near them constantly. Teachers,
parents, family members, neighbors and friends become models. They watch
their behaviors and form ideas of how new behaviors are performed. These
behaviors observed guide the students’ actions most of the time.”(p. 22).
According to Bandura (1977): “Social learning theory explains human behavior in
terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, an
environmental influences.”(p. 22). This theory emphasizes the importance of
observational learning, the attention to teachers and peers as models, the retention of
what is observed and the reproduction of the behavior observed (imitation). Another
aspect of this theory is that students seem to feel motivated by the external feedback they
receive and vicarious learning going on constantly.
24
Jean Lave’s Situated Learning. As stated by Lave (1990), learning as it
normally occurs is a function of the activity, context, and culture in which it occurs (i.e.,
it is situated). Lave & Wenger (1991) claim that social interaction is a critical component
of situated learning: learners become involved in a “community of practice,” which
embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired. It is expected that when students
are in a community of practice, they will become more active and engaged within the
culture and the learning community. Furthermore, situated learning is usually
unintentional rather than deliberate. These ideas are what Lave & Wenger (1991) call the
process of “legitimate peripheral participation.” (p. 29).
Researchers such as Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) emphasize the idea of
cognitive apprenticeship: “Cognitive apprenticeship supports learning in a domain by
enabling students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity.
Learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social
interaction and the social construction of knowledge.” (p. 32). Besides these theories that
are part of the foundation of the Inclusion Paradigm, there is also a legal framework
encompassing this model.
Legal Framework
Besides its grounds on philosophical theories, the Inclusion Paradigm is also
based on a legal framework. The Constitution of Puerto Rico includes nine articles that
establish the structure of the government and the functions of its agencies. It also
contains a Bill of Rights. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, a territory that belongs to the
United States. Considering this condition, Puerto Rico must also abide by the
Constitution of the United States. Both constitutions have articles that protect the
25
equality of all human beings and the right for a free education. Article II, sec.1 of the
Constitution of Puerto Rico sets forth that every human being is equal before the law and
there cannot be no discrimination on account of race, color, sex, birth, social origin or
condition, or political or religious ideas. Both the laws and the system of public
education shall embody these principles of essential human equality. This equal
protection clause is also included in the Constitution of the Unites States. The other
clause that bears great significance for this study is the right to free education. Article II,
sec. 5 of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, entitled Public Education refers to the right of
the citizens to receive free education. Both constitutions clearly establish these
protections for every human being. Some of the federal and state laws that support the
Inclusion Paradigm wilbe discussed subsequently.
Federal Laws.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB supports a standards-based
education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing
measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. Puerto Rico receives
funds for this purpose and it is currently carrying out a Flexibility Plan that requires the
administration to provide close follow-up to schools that are not reaching the established
goals. The Act requires the Department of Education of Puerto Rico to develop
assessments in basic skills in the subject areas of Spanish, English, Math and Science. To
receive federal school funding, states must give these assessments to all students at
selected grade levels. For instance, at high school level, the eleventh grade students are
tested. States must acquire an Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in standardized test
scores. AYP statewide measurable objectives for improved achievement are for all
26
students; this includes specific groups: economically disadvantaged students, students
with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. Therefore, students with
disabilities are tested as mainstream students are.
According to the National Council for Disabilities (NCD), NCLB and IDEA are
helping students with disabilities improve greatly. The NCD understands that both
statutes are reducing the number of students who drop out, increasing graduation rates,
and requiring effective strategies to transition students to post-secondary education. The
NCD has carried out various studies indicating that there has been a change in the
attitudes and expectations for students with disabilities, who are being included in state
assessment and accountability systems. As stated by the NCLB act, assessments must be
taken seriously. Assessments and accommodations are under review by administrators.
A 2006 report by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) and the Indiana
Institute on Disability and Community indicated that most states were not making AYP
because of special education subgroups, even though progress had been made toward that
end. This was, in fact, pushing schools to cancel the inclusion model and keep special
education students separate. According to one of the reports carried out by Cole (2006),
there is a great difference between both acts, in that IDEA calls for individualized
curriculum and assessments that determine success based on growth and improvement
each year; NCLB, in contrast, measures all students by the same markers, which are
based not on individual improvement but by proficiency in math and reading. (Cassandra
Cole, Report: No Child Left Behind is out of step with special education, November 15,
2006, p.1).
27
Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) of December 10, 2015. The Every Student
Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015. This represents a
shift of priorities in the schools. The previous version of this law was the No Child left
Behind Act (NCLB), enacted in 2002. Many parents and teachers complained about its
prescriptive requirements. Parents and educators were concerned on the need for a law
that considered the disabilities and the diversity that exists among the students. This new
law focuses on the clear goal of preparing students for success in different areas
especially in career preparation and future studies in college. Accountability and follow
up are state driven and based on multiple measures. This is one of the essential changes
made in this act.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement (IDEA) Act of 2004.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was originally
passed by Congress in 1975 to ensure that children with disabilities were treated like
other children and received free, public education. The law has been revised many times.
The most recent amendments were passed by Congress in December 2004, with final
regulations published in August 2006 (Part B for school-aged children). The main point
regarding this legislation is that it guarantees that students with a disability are provided
with free public education that suits their individual needs. This legislation was initially
known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) but in 1990, EHA
changed to IDEA (Public Law No. 94-142). This statute ensures that individuals with
disabilities receive the services they require in order to reach their highest potential.
IDEA regulates how public agencies provide early intervention, special education and
related services to more than 160,000 students in Puerto Rico. Overall, the goal of IDEA
28
is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those
students who do not have a disability. This law has elements that stand out, and that most
teachers are aware of such as:
1. Individualized Education Program (IEP)
2. Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
3. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
4. Appropriate Evaluation
5. Early Intervention (RTI)
6. Highly qualified teachers
7. Modified Academic Achievement Standards
8. Parent and Teacher Participation, and Procedural Safeguards
9. Confidentiality of Information
10. Transition Services that are carried out by Special Education teachers
11. Discipline management
12. Alignment with the No Child Left behind Act regarding accountability
13. Other significant issues.
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Educational Improvement Act of 2006.
The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Educational Improvement Act was initially
authorized by the federal government in 1984. It was reauthorized in the year 1998. On
August 12, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization of the Act of
1998 into law. Named for Carl D. Perkins, the statute aims to increase the quality of
technical education within the United States in order to help the economy.
29
The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins) was most
recently reauthorized in August 2006. The purpose of Perkins is to provide individuals
with the academic and technical skills needed to succeed in a knowledge and skills-based
economy. Perkins supports career and technical education that prepares its students for
both postsecondary education and the careers of their choice. Among the types of
activities supported by this law, the following are considered: it ensures access to career
and technical education for special populations, including students with disabilities, it
permits purchasing equipment to ensure that the classrooms have the latest technology,
and it also strengthens the integration of academic and career and technical education.
The available funds can also be used to provide professional development and technical
assistance for teachers, counselors and administrators.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is an extensive civil
rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It is similar to the Civil Act
of 1964 in the sense that it provides protections against discrimination to Americans with
disabilities. Discrimination on account of race, religion, sex, national origin, and other
characteristics is illegal. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to
employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public
accommodations upon the certification of condition by a qualifying specialist.
There must be no discrimination in job application procedures, hiring of
employees, advancement and discharge of employees, job training, conditions, and
privileges of employment. The law is very rigorous regarding issues such as asking job
applicants or employees’ disability-related questions, and medical examination
requirements. All medical information or records must be kept strictly confidential. The
30
amendments carried out during the years helped improved access to public services, the
built environment (access to crosswalks by curb cuts and accessible pedestrian signals),
and understanding of the abilities of people with disabilities, and established a right to
equal access to public services. Many of our schools areas have been modified for
wheelchairs and blind students to access upper floors. Still, today, many disparities have
remained in earned income, transportation, housing, and educational attainment, among
others. ADA prohibits discrimination and extends the right of access for students with
disabilities to all educational services and programs in schools notwithstanding if they
receive no federal funds.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (sec. 504), as
amended, requires a school district to provide an education that is public, free and
appropriate to each qualified student with a disability who is in the school district’s
jurisdiction, without considering the nature or severity of the disability. Educational
services must be designed to meet the individual needs according to the individual
educational program created for the student. They must be dealt with the same way that
students without disabilities are. According to what is stipulated in this act, an
appropriate education for a student with a disability under sec. 504 regulations could
consist of education in regular classrooms, education in regular classes with
supplementary services, and special education and related services. The Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (sec. 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are
antidiscrimination laws and do not provide any type of funding like IDEA does. In
Puerto Rico, students are integrated into the mainstream and are provided supplementary
services such as therapies and individualized help by special education teachers.
31
Assistive Technology Act of 2004. This law is an amendment of the Assistive
Technology Act (ATA) of 1998 to reauthorize and revise ATA programs. The purpose is
to provide grants or funds to states to maintain statewide programs that provide
opportunities to disabled students to obtain the assistive technology they need. As stated
in the law, it grants funds for state-level activities, including State financing system
activities (which may incorporate loan programs) to increase access to, and funding for,
AT [Assistive Technology] devices and services, as well as for programs for device
reutilization, device loan, and device demonstration and information; and state leadership
activities (no more than 40 percent of the AT grant), including training and technical
assistance (with at least five percent of the leadership portion to be used for transition
assistance to individuals with disabilities), public-awareness activities, and coordination
and collaboration. It also offers the opportunity for renovation, updating, and
maintenance of the National Public Internet Site under ATA.
State Laws.
Integral Services for People with Disabilities Act, Act No. 51 of June 7, 1996.
This law stands out because it talks about the creation of an Auxiliary Integral Services
Secretary for disabled people, and guarantees educational services. It gives them
authority and powers to coordinate the services with different agencies. It points out the
responsibilities of the agencies. This law reauthorizes a consulting Committee to
redefine composition, functions and obligations, to assign fund, and to derogate Act 21 of
July 22, 1977 known as the Law for the Special Education Program.
32
Puerto Rico Department of Education Special Act, Act No. 149 of July 15,
1999. This law recognizes the importance of the Special Education Program. It
guarantees by federal and state laws the rights of disabled students. The Department of
Education will provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) according to their
needs. It commits to the creation of laws and programs that will protect the educational
rights of these students with disabilities. It indicates that, whenever possible, most of the
education will occur in the least restrictive environment or mainstream. According to this
act, architectural barriers will be eliminated to grant access to these students. Students
will only be located in other environments if there is sufficient evidence that indicates
that he or she will not benefit from the education offered in the regular classrooms. The
services provided by the state for these students with disabilities will be based on their
needs, interests and capabilities.
This statute indicates that the Special Education Program will offer a varied and
flexible curriculum that can address the particular situation of each student. It stipulates
that personnel working on the implementation of the individualized educational program
of the student are responsible for helping them reach their goals and objectives instituted
in their IEP. One of the aspects that has been left behind, and is stipulated by the law, is
the professional development of teachers and Special Education assistants. The Secretary
of Education has the obligation to coordinate with the universities or private entities to
offer academic preparation to help this personnel deal with this population of students.
Finally, it states that the Secretary of Education will draft a plan for the development of
the Special Education Program and schedule its implementation.
33
Assistive Technology Program Act, Act No. 264 of August 31, 2000. This statute
establishes the Assistive Technology Program of Puerto Rico, its functions, powers,
responsibilities and organization. It also authorizes the project of recycling and
technological assistance equipment loans. Funds are also administered for this purpose.
Students with disabilities often require technological devices for their particular
impairments and this law provides for this purpose.
Bill of Rights for Persons with Disabilities, Act No. 238 of August 31, 2004.
This statute provides the definition of disable person and it specifies that disable people
have rights just like every other human being. It recognizes that this population must
have access to equal conditions in the areas of education, health, rehabilitation and all
public services. It lists all the essential rights and the state’s responsibilities concerning
this population.
Puerto Rico Education System Inclusion Program Act, Act No. 104 of August
26, 2005. This act was created to incorporate an Inclusion Program in Puerto Rico’s
educational system. It states that the intention of creating the law is to integrate disabled
people to our society. They will develop skills related to the main school subjects and
their incorporation to the workforce will be facilitated. The statute recognizes the
importance of socialization in the initial years of development. It will also incorporate
them into the school system in an environment of nondiscrimination and respect.
Students will be able to solve conflicts and develop tolerance towards individual
differences. This law is necessary because disabled people are highly discriminated and
isolated. The statute contains six articles that include its intent and approaches, the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Education, and the scope. One of the responsibilities
34
of the Secretary of Education is to provide orientation, courses and workshops to the
personnel dealing with disabled students.
Vocational and Career Evaluation for Students with Disabilities Act, Act No.
263 of December 13, 2006. Act No. 263: Vocational and Career Evaluation for Students
with Disabilities was proclaimed to provide adequate vocational and career evaluation to
students with disabilities to ensure their access to special education services that
guarantees them to develop their maximum potential of development for the integration
in the workforce.
Policies of the Department of Education of Puerto Rico.
Description of the Job: Teachers’ Responsibilities (DE-16). Document DE-16 is
a general document for all teachers that work in the public school system in Puerto Rico.
This text stipulates the responsibilities of all teachers that work for the Department of
Education, which are divided in four categories: planning, organizing and carrying out
activities required by the program, assessing students’ work, and maintaining excellent
personal relations in the school setting. In the first category, teachers have to plan
considering the existing needs and differences of the students. Teachers must consider the
school’s community, the students’ educational needs, and the social cultural setting.
Teachers must adapt the curriculum based on the students’ interests and needs. They
must use all the materials and equipment available to enhance and facilitate the students’
learning. All teachers must also relate their classes to the other subjects taught in the
school. Additionally, they must promote the use of technology and research and develop
special projects to motivate students to learn on their own. The second category relates to
following rules and norms that guide the school. Teachers must keep official records
35
updated and plan classes daily. They must know the services that the school offers and
make good use of the books and equipment of the school. Finally, they must prepare all
the reports that they are required regarding the teaching-learning process. The third
category deals with the evaluation process and the analysis of these assessment activities.
The last category refers to the need for maintaining good relations with the other workers
at the school, and participating in meetings or workshops to update knowledge. Teachers
are also responsible for creating a good atmosphere in their classrooms and
communication with parents. Teacher’s obligations are established in the document DE-
16, Act 149, as well as in the “Manual de Procedimientos de Educación Especial, 2004”
[Special Education Proceedings Manual of 2004] as mentioned previously.
Regulation for the Certification of the Teaching Staff of Puerto Rico (January
25, 2012). This regulation for the certification of the teaching staff in Puerto Rico was
approved by Secretary of State Hon. Kenneth McClintock in the year 2012. This
regulation repeals Regulation Number 6760: Regulation for the Certification of the
Teaching Staff of Puerto Rico, which was approved on February 5, 2004. This regulation
provides various ways in which teachers can be certified in different subjects. The three
ways provided are: the traditional route, the recertification and the alternative route.
Some subjects like English have additional requirements. For the purpose of this study,
the English and the Special Education certification requirements will be discussed. The
teachers who desire to be certified as secondary level English teachers and Special
Education teachers must fulfill the requirements presented in the following tables.
36
Table 1
Requirements for the Certification of a Secondary English Teacher in Puerto Rico
Traditional Route Recertification
Route
Alternative Route Additional
Requirement
Bachelor or
Master’s Degree
in Education with
a concentration or
specialty that
includes a
teaching
methodology
course and
teaching practice
in the area of
(English).
Regular teaching
certificate and a
minor
concentration that
includes a teaching
methodology
course in the
recertification area
(English).
Possess a Bachelor,
Master or Doctorate
Degree, and approve
the following
requirements:
1. A concentration
or specialty in
English that
includes
teaching
methodology.
2. Fifteen credits
in basic courses
that include
philosophical,
sociological and
psychological
foundations in
Education.
3. English
Secondary level
teaching practice.
The traditional
and alternative
routes require
the candidate to
take an English
proficiency test
as established by
the regulations
of the
Department of
Education.
Approve
(PCMAS)-
Certification for
teachers’ Test
Special Education teachers to be certified must meet the following requirements
presented in the following chart.
37
Table 2
Requirements for the Certification of a Special Education Teacher (K-12) in
Puerto Rico
Traditional
Route
Recertification
Route
Alternative Route Additional
Requirement
Bachelor or
Master’s
Degree in
Education with
a concentration
or specialty that
includes a
teaching
methodology
course and
teaching
practice in the
area of (Special
education).
Regular teaching
certificate and a
minor
concentration that
includes a
teaching
methodology
course in the
recertification
area (Special
Education).
Possess a Bachelor,
Master or Doctorate
Degree and approve
the following
requirements:
1. A concentration
or specialty in
Special Education
that includes
Technological
Assistance content.
2. (6) credits in
Reading teaching
methodology in
Special Education
3. (3) credits in
Math teaching
methodology in
Special Education.
4. (15) credits in
basic courses in the
area of Education
that include
philosophical,
sociological and
psychological
foundations in
Education.
5. Teaching
Practice in Special
Education or
equivalent.
For the
Recertification
Route any
certificate of
articles VIII, X,
and XI of this
Regulation can be
considered.
VIII- Certificate
for teachers of
Academic
Programs.
X- Certificate for
teachers of
Occupational
Programs
XI- Certificate for
teachers of
Montessori
Program.
Approve
(PCMAS)-
Certification for
teachers’ Test.
38
English Program Curricular Framework. The English Program Curricular
Framework, as described in the first page by its creators, is an essential document that
brings together the philosophical principles, vision, mission, goals, areas of study by
levels, organization, scope, and sequence of the content, including general
recommendations of strategies, teaching methods, and criteria for evaluation. It is a
general document that outlines in general terms the curriculum principles offered at each
level and lists the theoretical foundations on which it is supported. It includes the content
to be developed, the methodology and the process of learning and assessment. The
primary purposes of the Curricular Framework, as stated, are:
1. To establish the mission, goals, focuses, objectives, contents, and methods of
the processes of teaching and learning of the Program studies.
2. To guide the elaboration of investigations and the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the curriculum and academic achievement.
3. To guide the processes of teacher preparation and development of in-service
training by subject.
4. To guide the elaboration of the curriculum in its diverse levels (basic national-
guide of courses, courses- school unit and instructional).
This framework recognizes the complexity of second language (L2) learning in
Puerto Rico. It also acknowledges the discrepancies among student learning and the
diversity present in each classroom. Some of the reasons provided for the vast
differences are: socio-economic status, interests, attitudes towards learning a second
language, needs, exposure to the language and the support they receive at home. Each
student, school and community is different. A needs’ assessment is recommended in
39
each school community because these particularities varying from place to place must be
considered for curriculum planning.
Circular Letter 8-2013-2014: Public Policy Concerning the Curricular Content
of the English Program for all the Public Elementary, Intermediate and High Schools.
This document encompasses the curricular content of the English Program at all levels in
the Department of Education of Puerto Rico. It begins by emphasizing the importance of
globalization and how the English language has become essential for international
communication. Besides exposing this topic of pronounced relevance, it also summarizes
the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Human rights
must be protected by all. It also makes reference to Law 149 of the year 1999 titled
Organic Law of the Department of Education. Section 3.03 of this act sets forth that all
the school programs have to be adjusted to the needs and experiences of the students.
This document includes the vision, the mission and the goals of the English Program of
Puerto Rico. The circular letter indicates that planning must be carried out by taking into
consideration the curriculum framework, the standards and expectations of each grade,
and the circular letters related to the English Program. Some basic principles concerning
language use are listed, such as: language as a mechanism used for communication; the
language arts of reading, listening, speaking and writing are an integral part of the
English language, and the process of acquiring a language, which must include an
optimal environment using stimuli and reinforcement. The approaches used by the
English Program are:
1. Balanced Literacy Approach
2. Natural Approach
40
3. Oral Approach
4. Communicative Approach
5. Functional-Notional Approach
6. Differentiated Instruction
7. Project Based Learning
Aside from mentioning the approaches, it also makes a list and explains the
recommended techniques and activities, such as:
1. Scaffolding
2. Reciprocal Teaching
3. Critical Thinking Skills
4. Direct Instruction
5. Sheltered Instruction
6. Hands-on Experience
7. Oral Cloze
8. Think-Pair-Share
9. Repetition and Oral Routine
10. Small group discussions
11. Language experience approach
12. Role playing
Some of the ideal approaches and techniques that can be used for students with
special needs are differentiated instruction, scaffolding, small group discussions, think-
pair-share, and hands-on-experience. Using differentiated instruction the teacher can
help students with particular needs offering them activities that improve their
41
understanding. Scaffolding requires teachers to know what background knowledge the
students have in order to build upon that. Group discussions and think-pair-share are
activities carried out with their peers, who may help provide feedback to the students who
do not understand. Finally, as for hands-on-experiences, as John Dewey stated, learning
by doing requires students to experience what they are learning and it is also part of the
constructivist theory and the total physical approach.
The circular letter specifies what each level will cover and the assessment to be
carried out. It also remarks that conversational English will only be offered in vocational
and technical schools. The advanced English course will be guided by its own circular
letter.
As with all investigations, there are questions that must be answered to obtain the
information needed to understand the problem and be able to make well informed
suggestions. The following section of this study will specify the three areas of focus
covered by this study and the questions to be answered in this investigation.
Research Questions
This phenomenological study has three areas of emphasis. First, it is important to
understand how the inclusion of students with disabilities is being carried out in the ELL
high school classrooms, as experienced by teachers and parents. Second, it bears
listening to their suggestions of what is needed in order to improve the integration of this
population and what can be done to move towards the inclusive practices that has been
sought for so long. Third, it is imperative to identify the factors that are complicating the
successful inclusion of these students. Therefore, the research questions are:
42
1. What are the perspectives of English as Second Language teachers on the
inclusion process in their classroom?
2. What are the perspectives of the Special Education teachers on the inclusion
process in the ELL classroom?
3. What are the perspectives of the parents on the inclusion process in the ELL
classroom?
4. What are the suggestions made by all three categories of participants to
improve the inclusion process in the ELL classroom?
5. What factors complicate or obstruct the inclusive practice in the ELL
classroom?
Justification
Ricardo Cortés (2015) in his article “El secreto de los números oficiales” [The
Secret of the Official Numbers] published in the newspaper El Nuevo Día, stated that the
amount of special education students in Puerto Rico is disproportionate revealing that the
Department of Education is confronting classification problems. The constant increase of
students with disabilities during the last decade that are being served in inclusive
classrooms in Puerto Rico has increased the need for teachers’ preparation. All students
have a right to quality education and to be able to maximize their potential for future
employment opportunities. The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions
that ESL teachers, Special Education teachers, and parents have concerning the
integration of students with disabilities in the English as a second language classroom to
identify ways in which this process might be improved. Hardin (2005) wrote that
teaching experience was a key to better perspectives, and will point out the current
43
situation being experienced by teachers and parents. Teachers have often reported that
they were not prepared to work adequately with students with special needs in the regular
classroom (Cook, 2002). The identification of beneficial practices and of possible
obstacles to the process will provide insight as to what is really going on. Afterwards,
suggestions may be made to improve the process of moving towards inclusiveness. This
phenomenological study will investigate the experiences that teachers and parents have
with this phenomenon without intervening in any manner.
Definition of Terms
Accommodations ― Changes that allow a person with a disability to
participate fully in an activity. Examples include: extended time, different test
format, and alterations to a classroom.
Assessment or Evaluation ― Term used to describe the testing and diagnostic
processes leading up to the development of an appropriate IEP for a student
with special education needs.
Assistive technology device ― Equipment used to maintain or improve the
capabilities of a child with a disability.
Disability ― ADA, sec. 504, defined disability as impairment that
substantially affects one or more major life activities; an individual who has a
record of having such impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment.
Discrimination ― Discrimination is defined as the overarching act of
inequity, intolerance, or favoritism with regard to specific characteristics and
traits considered being out of the control of those in their possession.
44
Discrimination may occur in virtually every social setting in which
fundamental differences exist between individuals or groups.
Due Process ― Special education term used to describe the process where
parents may disagree with the program recommendations of the school
district. Notice must be given in writing within 30 days. IDEA provides two
methods for resolving disputes: mediation or fair hearing.
Early Intervention ― Programs for developmentally delayed infants and
toddlers through 35 months of age; designed to help prevent problems as the
child matures.
ELLs ― English Language Learners.
English as a Second Language teacher ― ESL teachers work with English
language learners to help these students acquire fluency in English, both
spoken and written. These teachers normally have special training in the field.
Teachers in kindergarten through 12th grade usually hold credentials in ESL,
and teachers at the community college level may have master’s degrees in it.
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) ― Special education and related
services are provided at public expense, without charge to the parents.
Highly Qualified ― When used with respect to any public elementary school
teacher, secondary school teacher, or special education teacher teaching in a
state, highly qualified requires that the teacher obtain a full state certification
as a teacher or as a special education teacher, or pass the state teacher
licensing examination, and hold a license to teach in the state. Building the
Legacy: IDEA 2004. (2012)
45
IEP ― Individualized Educational Plan.
Inclusion ― Stainback & Stainback (1996) define inclusion as the placement
for all students with disabilities in general education classrooms with
necessary support given within these classrooms. Inclusion is also defined as a
cohesive sense of community, acceptance of differences and responsiveness to
individual needs.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) ― This Act, drafted
in 1975, guarantees students with disabilities a free and appropriate public
education and the right to be educated with their non-disabled peers. Congress
has reauthorized this federal law. The most recent revision was in 2004.
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) ― Special education term outlined by
IDEA to define the written document that states the disabled child’s goals,
objectives and services for students receiving special education. (Glossary of
Special Education and Legal Terms, Wrightslaw, 2009)
Individualized Education Program Team ― Term employed to describe the
committee of parents, teachers, administrators and school personnel that
provides services to the student. The committee may also include medical
professionals and other relevant parties. The team reviews assessment results,
determines goals, objectives, and program placement for the child in need for
these services. Id.
Integration ― The Alliance for Inclusive Education defines integration as
disabled people of all ages and those learners with ‘Special Educational
Needs’ labels being placed in mainstream education settings with some
46
adaptations and resources, but on condition that the disabled person and the
learner with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels can fit in with
pre-existing structures, attitudes and an unaltered environment.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) ― The placement of a special needs
student in order to promote the maximum possible interaction with the general
school population. Placement options are offered on a continuum including
regular classroom with no support services, regular classroom with support
services, designated instruction services, special day classes and private
special education programs.
Modifications ― Substantial changes in what the student is expected to
demonstrate; includes changes in instructional level, content, and performance
criteria; it may include changes in test form or format; includes alternate
assessments.
Multiple Disabilities ― An IEP term used to define a combination of
disabilities that causes severe educational needs that require multiple special
education programs, such as mental retardation with blindness. Id.
Parent ― Parent, guardian, or surrogate parent; may include grandparent or
stepparent with whom a child lives, and foster parent. Id.
Progress monitoring ― An scientifically based practice used to assess
students’ academic performance and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction;
can be implemented with individual students or an entire class. Id.
Resource Specialists ― They provide instructional planning, support, and
direct services to students whose needs have been identified in an IEP and are
47
assigned to general education classrooms for the majority of their school day.
Id.
Resource Specialist Program (RSP) ― Term used to describe a program that
provides instruction, materials, and support services to students with identified
disabilities who are assigned to general classrooms for more than 50% of their
school day. Id.
Response to Intervention (RTI) ― It is the use of research-based instruction
and interventions with students who are at risk and students who are suspected
of having specific learning disabilities. Id.
Severe Disability ― People with severe disabilities are those who traditionally
have been labeled as having severe to profound mental retardation. These
people require ongoing, extensive support in more than one major life activity
in order to participate in integrated community settings and enjoy the quality
of life available to people with fewer or no disabilities. They frequently have
additional disabilities, including movement difficulties, sensory losses, and
behavior problems. National Dissemination Center for Children with
Disabilities (NICHCY, 2013).
Special education ― Specially design instruction, at no cost to the parents, to
meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. Id.
Specific learning disability (SLD) ― Disability category under IDEA;
includes disorders that affect the ability to understand or use spoken or written
language; may manifest in difficulties with listening, thinking, speaking,
48
reading, writing, spelling, and doing mathematical calculations; includes
minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Id.
Standardized test ― It is a norm-referenced test that compares the child’s
performance with the performance of a large group of similar children
(usually children who are the same age). Id.
Students with Disabilities (SWD) ― A child with intellectual disabilities,
hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments,
visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance,
orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health
impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and who, by reason thereof,
needs special education and related services. Id.
Supplementary aids and services ― Means aids, services, and support
provided in regular education classes that enable children with disabilities to
be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. Id.
Limitations of the Study
Some limitations will arise, after initiating this phenomenological study
concerning the perspectives of teachers and parents about inclusive practices in some
high schools located in an eastern school district of Puerto Rico. First, it might take some
time to obtain the permissions to interview the English teachers and parents and to enter
the various educational facilities. Second, the study will be conducted with high school
teachers, who must have certain characteristics sought by the investigator. Finding a
volunteer sample population with more than five years of experience in the process of
working with high school students that belong to the Special Education program and who
49
are able to relate to this investigation and provide assertive information might prove a
challenge. Third, phenomenological studies tend to be time-consuming due to the
requirement of transcribing the data literally and analyzing the data gathered in the
interviews, self-reports or aesthetic expressions (art, drawings or narratives). Finally, the
investigation is exploratory and not conclusive because the sample is small. The
researcher cannot make generalizations with the data obtained once the investigation is
concluded.
Possible Contributions to the Field
The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of special education
teachers, general ESL teachers and parents of disabled high school students regarding the
integration in a regular classroom environment. Participants included three licensed
general English teachers, three Special Education teachers and three parents of Special
Education students who are currently or have been involved in an inclusion program for
more than three years. It is the intention of this study to analyze all of the perspectives of
the participants to narrate them just as experienced by the participants and the meaning
that these experiences have for them. The obtained information will point out the flaws
and limitations that the program might have as well as its virtues or strengths. The study
will draw attention to the factors that are preventing the progress of this program towards
inclusiveness. It will also reveal the recommendations of teachers and parents to improve
the service provided to this student population. The purpose is to improve the program,
and this will result in benefits for the students, who after all, are the ones being served by
the educational system in Puerto Rico. It will also add new findings to the investigations
being carried out about the inclusion paradigm. Additionally countries around the world
50
who seek to address this matter face two essential issues: underlining the critical
components of successful inclusion of students with disabilities for teachers, service
providers, parents, and administrators, and emphasizing the need to develop knowledge
and skills to better meet the challenges of the present school climate. (Carroll, Forlin, &
Jobling, 2003) (Florian & Rouse, 2009)
Overview
The first chapter included the following: an introduction to the topic, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the theoretical framework, the
research questions, the justification, the definition of terms, the limitations of the study,
the contributions to the field and an overview of the following chapters. The second
chapter will consist of a review of current and past literature involving the history of the
inclusion paradigm and its development throughout the years. Recent literature and
studies related to this phenomenon will be analyzed. The third chapter will provide a
description of the methodology and procedures used to obtain the data. The fourth
chapter will provide the analyses and interpretation of data collected through the used
methodology. The final chapter will present the conclusions and recommendations
presented by the participants and the investigator and suggestions for further research.
51
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
The following chapter is a collection or gathering of findings from different
investigations that have been carried out on the topic of inclusion. It will provide insight
concerning what is known about students, teachers and policies. The term will be defined
and advantages and disadvantages of this paradigm will be enumerated. It will also
contain some historical background.
Inclusion
The term inclusion has several definitions, but to direct this study efficiently the
term will be related to the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA) enacted in 1990 but
reauthorized in 1997 and 2004. According to this statute, to educate students with special
needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE):
(2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including
children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with
children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or
severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (IDEA, 2004).
Inclusion then refers to the participation of students in the least restrictive
environment (LRE). Students with disabilities are placed together with their
nondisabled peers in academic, extracurricular, and all other school activities.
52
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the idea of integration has been moving
towards an all-embracing inclusion movement. This shift in paradigm is attracting
powerful and varying concerns by educators in this field and the public in general
including the parents as seen in various newspaper articles of parents claiming the
services their children require. Rosa Lydia’s case is one of these clamors. Many terms
are used when dealing with the students with special needs’ accommodations. Some of
these terms are: segregation, mainstreaming, full mainstreaming, inclusion, full inclusion,
integration, full integration, partial integration, and so on. The provided definitions are
also diverse. To guide this study, the researcher will use the legal definition of inclusion
endorsed by IDEA as reauthorized in 2004. Osgood (2005) affirms that inclusion has
risen above the notion of including children with disabilities with their nondisabled peers
in the general education classroom. Inclusion is what is being pursued and considered as
the ultimate goal of the Special Education Program. It was the generally accepted goal
for educating students with disabilities. (McLaughlin & Nolet, 2004). In most schools of
Puerto Rico, students with disabilities are integrated because they attend a special
resource classroom directed by a Special Education teacher. Inclusion requires that all
needs be met inside the regular classrooms, as opposed to attending a special resource
classroom. Special education teachers have been promoting the inclusion paradigm in
meetings carried out in schools to parents, administrators, and regular education teachers.
Special education teachers that work with students through inclusion have had
specialized training and have been frequently seen as knowledgeable advocates for
children with disabilities. (Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997). Many regular education teachers do
not have the knowledge and are not trained to work with students with special needs.
53
Furthermore, teachers in training are separated with respect to their certification area, and
specialized educational pedagogies are kept for candidates who pursue the area of special
education teacher, leaving teachers in the other certification areas (early childhood (K-3),
childhood (4-6), and secondary education) with only the most basic understanding of how
to teach a diverse group of students. (Braunsteiner & Mariano-Lapidus, 2014). They also
believe that in order to facilitate inclusive thinking and acting, we must provide all
teacher candidates and school leaders and administrators with knowledge about diversity
and the pedagogy needed to initiate their practice with confidence. Whitbread, K. (2015)
itemized the following findings of research related to inclusion. The teacher’s attitude is
essential to the success or failure of inclusion. (Cook et al., 1999) (Fox & Ysseldyke,
1997). Regular education teachers are the ones who have to deal with every change of
paradigm or policies brought up by the Department of Education. There are supporters
for several of the paradigms presented before. Full inclusion supporters encourage a
unified educational system for all students. (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). These call for the
full-time placement of all students with disabilities, regardless of the type or severity of
the disability, into general education classrooms. (Smith, 1998). Others dispute for
sustaining a dual system of general education and special education (Lieberman, A. &
McLaughlin, M.W., 1992) and maintaining a full continuum of services (therapies,
technological services, and devices, etc.) as mandated by law. This last alternative is the
one currently in use in Puerto Rico. All the interventions majorly rely on the teachers
that have to plan and meet all students’ needs. Their attitudes towards the inclusion of
these students can have positive or negative effects on the students. Weisel and Tur-
Kaspa (2002) in Whitbread (2015) state that the amount of success students with special
54
needs can have from inclusion heavily relies on general education teachers’ attitudes
towards them. Not only do general education teachers’ attitudes affect the success of
students with special needs, but “research is available which implies that teachers’
attitudes can have a detrimental effect on handicapped students’ psychological and
educational adjustment to the regular classroom”. (Johnson, 2001, p. 230). The attitudes
of the teachers are evident through their treatment and interactions with the students in
their classroom. Teachers’ interactions and ways of behaving with their students can
openly denote their feelings and thoughts about them. Students can feel what the
teachers think of them through their feedback. Teachers tend to provide more positive
feedback to students that have high achievement than to those that do not. It is difficult to
deal with low achievers especially if they have no interest. Teaching methodologies have
to change just as the new generations of students have changed. Most of the students are
into technology and are knowledgeable of a diversity of topics. Computers are allowing
worldwide communication and the globalization process is a priority. Teacher’s
expectations are not the same for all students. Those who are considered lower achieving
tend to have less contact with regular education teachers all together, and what little
contact they do have is usually not positive. (Johnson, 2001). During the 1980s,
aggressive efforts to integrate virtually every child regardless of the severity of the
disability increased; this gave rise to the term full mainstreaming. During that decade,
education theorists used the term mainstreaming as well as the term inclusion. (Osgood,
2005). Inclusion is what is expected in the regular classrooms concerning children with
special needs, and it is pivotal to know how and why this is the prevailing approach
nowadays. The following section of this study will cover the history of inclusion.
55
History of Inclusion
Paradigms have changed throughout the history of Special Education. To
understand the phenomenon of inclusion, a complete study of the historical background
of the Special Education field becomes fundamental. There are several groundbreaking,
significant events that mark this paradigm. One of the most critical is Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The landmark decision made by the Supreme
Court in 1954 was one of the most decisive events in American social intellectual history
during the 20th Century. (Osgood, 2005). Brown (1954) is considered a groundbreaking
case for the court systems to apply the separate is not equal clause and prepared the way
for the integration of blacks in the American public schools. At the same time, it
provided foundation for the statement that segregation of disabled students in schools was
not equal. This new concern for civil rights and efforts to meet the needs of students
eventually affected the children with disabilities. (Osgood, 2005; Winzer, 2012)
Segregation in public schools was found to be a denial of equal protection under the law
and made it unfeasible to defend segregation for other groups of minorities including the
children with special needs. (Osgood, 2005; Pulliam & Van Patten, 2007). This decision
affected the areas of lawmaking, politics, social policy, and education.
Besides Brown, there are other court cases that had significant results for the
mainstreaming of disabled students. Landmark court decisions helped advance
educational opportunities for children with disabilities. Two examples provided by Webb
(2006) are the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth 334
F.Supp. 1257 (ED Pa. 1971) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
348 F.Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972), which made clear that states and localities were
56
responsible to educate children with disabilities. The right of every disabled child to be
educated is substantiated in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the
United States Constitution.
The education of students with special needs goes way back in time. The
newspaper Special Education News of October, 2015 indicates that today, children with
disabilities routinely attend the same public schools as children without disabilities but it
was not always this way. This article points out that prior to legislation requiring public
education for children with cognitive or emotional disabilities, deafness, blindness or the
need for speech therapy, among others, parents had few options other than to educate
their children at home or pay for expensive private education. Most of these students
were segregated. The article “A Brief History of the Disability Rights Movement” states
that:
[…] [I]n the 1800s, people with disabilities were considered meager, tragic, pitiful
individuals unfit and unable to contribute to society, except to serve as ridiculed
objects of entertainment in circuses and exhibitions. They were assumed to be
abnormal and feeble-minded, and numerous persons were forced to undergo
sterilization. People with disabilities were also forced to enter institutions and
asylums, where many spent their entire lives. The ‘purification’ and segregation
of persons with disability were considered compassionate actions, but ultimately
served to keep people with disabilities invisible and hidden from a dreadful and
biased society. (Anti-Defamation League, 2005)
Disabled people were marginalized and even disregarded then, and in a certain
way today; they have gone through many battles for many years to obtain the victories
57
they have had until today. The stigma of being disabled has had effects in their
socialization process for many generations. On the other hand, they have encountered
different obstacles or barriers. It was not until the 1960s that the civil rights movement
began to take shape, and disability advocates saw the opportunity to join forces alongside
other minority groups to demand equal treatment, equal access and equal opportunity for
people with disabilities. Finally, after so many years of battle they obtained a victory.
Their civil rights were protected by the Rehabilitation Act passed by Congress in 1973.
Then the next proclaimed statute was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(1975) to guarantee equal access to public education for children with disabilities. This
act was renamed in 1990 to what is actually known as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), which combines the inclusion of children with disabilities into
regular classes and their parents’ right to get involved in the decisions made by the school
concerning their children. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was
passed to include the equal treatment and access of disabled people to employment and to
public accommodations. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) adds the
transportation issue. The technological support for students with special needs is also
mandatory with the Assistive Technology Act of 2004.
Changes in Paradigm
The study of the changes in paradigm is also necessary. The initial paradigm of
segregation changed to mainstreaming, then to integrating, and finally in these days, it is
pretended to be totally inclusive. The various articles include a wide variety of terms and
definitions of the employed terms. Some authors write about integration and
mainstreaming as synonymous concepts. In spite of the similarities, there are some
58
differences between mainstreaming and inclusion that should be clarified. While
mainstreaming involves placing students with disabilities, particularly students with mild
disabilities, in regular classrooms for part of the day, inclusion involves allowing all
students with disabilities to participate in the general education curriculum as well as in
regular classes with their typically developing peers to the maximum extent possible.
(Osgood, 2005) (Westling & Fox, 2009). Others differentiate mainstreaming as a pull out
on only certain subjects that the student is unable to deal with and included in others.
Integration is defined as being part of the regular classes but receiving service in special
resource classroom with the Special Education teacher. Some of these terms are the
following: segregation, partial inclusion, exclusion, partial mainstreaming, full
mainstreaming, and inclusion. There are also various types of inclusion. In this study, the
terms to be covered are integration and inclusion. Beginning in the 1960s and the early
1970s, the term segregation was the trend concerning students with disabilities. They
were treated inferiorly and viewed as unable to be educated. These students were
excluded and many of them were in institutions, asylums and places that provided special
protection or care. In the early 1970s and 1980s, people began to demand equal rights,
and there was a shift towards integration. The school system offers a Special Education
Program responsible for attending to the needs of students with disabilities. Integration
made people dissatisfied because disabled students were not treated equally; they were
separated and their interaction with the regular students was limited in many cases. They
demanded a total reform. Parents wanted their children to be treated as regular students
avoiding their children to be designated as having special needs. At the same time, they
wanted regular teachers to provide what was necessary for the student’s success. In view
59
of these deficiencies in the process of integration, many arguments were made in favor of
a reform. This led to the inclusive paradigm in the 1990s. Inclusion is argued originate
from or have been presented in various events such as the 1990 World Conference on
Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand and the Salamanca World Conference on Special
Needs Education: Access and Quality carried out in Spain in June 1994. These
conferences claimed for education accessibility for all children and for this to be seen as a
fundamental human right. They claimed for equity, access to education, and preparation
of the learning environment. Inclusive classrooms were sought by many. The common
ways of viewing disabled students as a problem changed and was centered instead on
arranging and organizing the classrooms to accommodate all learners regardless of their
differences. Balescut and Eklindh (2006) differentiate the term inclusive from integration
and mainstreaming the following way:
Inclusive education differs from previously held notion of ‘integration’ and
‘mainstreaming,’ which tended to be concerned principally with ‘special
educational needs’ and implied learners changing or becoming ‘ready for’
accommodation by the mainstream. By contrast, inclusion is about the child’s
right to participate and the school’s duty to accept and ensure this right. It is thus
about rejecting exclusion of learners for any reasons, maximizing participation of
all learners, making learning more meaningful for all children and rethinking and
restructuring school policies, curricula and practices so that all learning needs can
be met. (p. 2)
60
Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion
The inclusion paradigm can be beneficial if implemented properly and teachers
have the support they need. It is designed to help children with special needs feel and
interact in the least restrictive environment as IDEA requires. The principal advantage of
inclusion is that it helps all children at the school appreciate and assist each other.
Students socialize and learn from each other as previously stated in Lev Vygotsky’s
theory of social development. Students with special needs have models to follow: their
nondisabled classmates. It provides time for the regular education students to help those
who have impairments, and understand and feel sympathy towards them instead of
making fun or bullying them. Both regular and disabled students can learn from each
other and to accept differences. General education students also benefit from
understanding that not all people are the same and that people with disabilities have rights
as just as they do. “Academic benefits for general education students include having
additional special education staff in the development of academic adaptations for all
students who need them.” (Hines, 2001, p. 3). This is the expected inclusive
environment that is not yet present in the schools of Puerto Rico. According to Wigle et
al. (1994), “the ultimate goal of special education, as with all educational programs, is to
assist students in becoming productive citizens.” (p. 5). “Regardless of their skill or
whether they possess a disability, people cannot be productive if they are unable to
function in the society and workforce.” (Id.)
Based on research, Kocchar, West, and Taymans (2000) conclude that the benefits
of inclusion for students with disabilities are the following:
61
Inclusion facilitates more appropriate social behavior because of higher
expectations in the general education classroom,
promotes levels of achievement higher or at least as high as those achieved
in self-contained classrooms,
offers a wide circle of support, including social support from classmates
without disabilities,
and improves the ability of students and teachers to adapt to different
teaching and learning styles. (p. 3)
The authors further state that the general education students also benefit from
inclusion, as it:
offers the advantage of having an extra teacher or aide to help them with the
development of their own skills,
leads to greater acceptance of students with disabilities,
facilitates understanding that students with disabilities are not always easily
identified,
and promotes better understanding of the similarities among students with
and without disabilities. (Id.)
The inclusion paradigm also has disadvantages. The most critical is that
educators and parents of children in general education worry that full inclusion will lower
the standard of learning for the class and make it less of a priority than socializing.
(Irmsher, 1995) Another disadvantage of inclusion is that students with special needs
who are placed in an inclusive setting which is not controllable by teachers may not have
adequate behavior. Some special education children can be disruptive and interfere with
62
the teaching-learning process constantly minimizing the teacher’s time to present their
lessons. Regarding this issue, research is contradictory. This situation is not favorable for
students in the general setting because aside from behavior issues, teachers have to go
slow when presenting new material because all of the students are different. The ones
that understand become impatient or feel bothered with the pace of the class. “Full
inclusion is not the best placement for all students. The general education classroom is
typically not individualized”. (Bateman & Bateman, 2002, p. 3). Not all teachers can
handle all the disabilities that exist. Teachers usually have from 25 to 30 students per
class making it difficult to provide individualization. The general education teacher
usually does not have extensive training to help students with disabilities like special
education specialists have. If a student is fully included all day in the regular classroom,
they may lose the individualization time that they need with a specialist to understand
academic areas that they do not control.
English Language Learning and Inclusion
Teachers of English language learners (ELL) must also be aware of what is
pointed out regarding how these students with special needs learn. The term English-
language learners (ELL) is actually replacing other terms such as Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) and English as a Second Language (ESL) because it focuses on their
education needs and not on their limitations. Findings related to the learning of English
by students that belong to the Special Education Program must be studied in order to
reconcile both areas and to understand what has been investigated and strategies that can
help teachers improve the way they teach English-language learners with learning
difficulties. In the article “Teaching English-Language Learners with Learning
63
Difficulties” (2015) there is a list of suggestions that can be followed when working with
disabled or special needs ELLs:
Successful educators of English-language learners with learning
difficulties understand that demonstrating language proficiency depends
heavily on contextual factors.
The purpose of providing comprehensible input to English-language
learners with learning difficulties is to ensure that instruction deals with
grade-appropriate content, concepts, and skills.
The most common problem in providing meaningful access to the
curriculum has been the practice of viewing English-language learners
with learning difficulties as simply low-performing native English
speakers.
A critical concept for second-language development for students with and
without learning difficulties is comprehensible input – students being able
to understand the essence of what is being said or presented to them.
The initial step that will help immensely is preparing the right kind of
instructional environment for English-language learners with learning
difficulties. (p. 1)
Learning a second language is not easy. There are fundamental internal and
external factors that influence its success. Some of the internal factors that are mentioned
in most second language acquisition books are: age, motivation, personality, experiences,
exposure, cognition, persistence, support and others. Some external factors are: culture,
status, instruction, motivation, practice, pertinence and others. Students that have
64
excellent literary skills in their native language tend to learn faster. Cognitive factors are
also relevant.
Stephen Krashen stressed the importance of comprehensible input but he did not
place emphasis on social aspects as Lev Vygotsky did. Teachers must recognize the
background knowledge (schemata) that children bring to the classroom and use this as a
foundation (to begin the scaffolding process) for language development. Cognitive
aspects of learning as well as linguistic aspects are indispensable in language learning.
John Dewey believed that students were successful in learning environments where they
could interact and experience the curriculum with their peers. This is closely related to
social cultural theories reviewed previously. Language develops in a social context and
pupils who simply listen and do not participate in discussion and practice may get limited
opportunities to apply their learning to other contexts. Teachers need to allow pupils to
practice their language skills in supportive contexts. Students construct their own
learning. Dewey’s works made a significant contribution to theories of inclusive
education. Another great contribution was made by Paulo Freire, who believed that
education had to be socially just. Equality of access to education, accommodations of all
students, and the transformation of education were essential to Freire.
Some findings that relate to the learning of a second language are:
1. Swain (1995) argued that learners should be encouraged to produce, not
simply receive, language in order to promote their linguistic awareness and to
develop their understanding.
2. The value of first language goes beyond the linguistic and its use signals
recognition of the cultural and cognitive associations. (Bourne, 2002)
65
3. There have recently been a large number of studies devoted to the role of
motivation in different aspects of language learners and learning. (Wu, 2003)
One thing is clear and it is the fact that motivation has always been found to
significantly affect language learning success.
4. There is clear evidence that ELLs with an intelligence measure above average
tend to do well is SLL. (Mitchell & Myles, 2004)
English-language learners have to be given the best start possible. Dealing with
diversity has never been easy. For some teachers, it is easier to remove the dilemma and
make a specialist of the subject responsible. Inclusion implies understanding the learner
so that the necessary differentiations can be made. This is exactly what is being required.
Sensitivity plays an important role but the support required is invaluable and cannot be
postponed. Voltz et al. (2005) reiterated that “in inclusive education fair is not when
everyone gets the same thing. Fair is when everyone gets what they need in order to
learn.” (p.18). That is exactly what is being claimed and the need for teacher preparation
is also part of it.
Research Findings
Research has been made in different areas such as students’ academic gain,
teachers’ attitudes, social issues, instructional strategies, support provided and the
teaching of English language learners (ELL) with disabilities among others. Research
findings are inconclusive and varied. Investigators on the topic also differ in their
findings. Some outcomes from research agree and others disagree on the same areas of
investigation. Findings are usually different due to different particularities. Rebecca
Hines (2001) in her article “Inclusion in Middle Schools” states the following:
66
Current legislation supports the concept of including students with disabilities in
the general education classroom but leaves many wondering, ‘Is this approach
working?’ Determining the effectiveness of this practice is a task that cannot be
done easily. The term itself ―inclusion― is not found in any law and is used
inconsistently in the educational community. Inclusive programs differ greatly
from district to district, both in definition and implementation. Variables such as
amount and nature of support provided to the regular classroom teacher differ
dramatically from district to district, sometimes from school to school and child to
child, and are not easily controlled for research purposes. (p. 1)
The topic of inclusion may be contended for years to come due to differences of
opinions and arguments among teachers, parents and administrators. Research has
pointed out the following aspects concerning teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion:
1. Teachers feel that students with disabilities entail additional time, resources
and planning that, in turn, restrict their ability to teach students without
identified disabilities. (De Simone & Parmar, 2006)
2. Teachers are focusing on curriculum and not on pedagogy. (Rose, 2001)
3. The amount of success students with special needs can have from inclusion
heavily relies on general education teachers’ attitudes towards them. (Weisel
and Tur-Kaspa, 2002)
4. Their experiences have been that special education resource teachers and
educational assistants are the only ones who can accept the responsibility for
teaching students with disabilities. (Bunch, Al-Salah, Pearpoint, 2011)
67
5. Johnson (2001) states that “research is available which implies that teachers’
attitudes can have a detrimental effect on handicapped students’ psychological
and educational adjustment to the regular classroom.” (p.230)
6. A great amount of general education teachers feel unprepared and unable to
teach students with disabilities. (DeSimone & Parmar, 2003) (Smith & Smith,
2000) (Stahl, 2002, 2015). Teacher’s expectations are not the same for all
students.
7. Students who are considered lower achieving tend to have less contact with
the general education teachers all together, and what little contact they do
have is usually not positive. (Johnson, 2001)
8. Teachers have often reported that they were not prepared to work adequately
with students with special needs in the regular classroom. (Cook, 2002)
9. Research shows that principals, superintendents, teachers, parents and
community members must all be involved and invested in the successful
outcome of inclusive education (Villa, 1997, and Walther-Thomas, 1997 in
Whitbread, 2015) not only regular classroom teachers.
10. Teachers ―both general and special education― must collaborate to create
learning strategies and environments that work for all students. Related
service personnel, including speech therapists, occupational therapists,
physical therapists and school psychologists will be expected to deliver their
services in the general education environment rather than in therapy rooms,
and will need to incorporate their services into the general education
curriculum and schedule (Ferguson, Ralph, & Katul in Whitbread, 2015).
68
11. Soto and colleagues found that general educators who have regular
opportunities to collaborate and consult with professional peers show
evidence of increased instructional skills as well as decreased tendencies to
make referrals to special education (Soto, Müller, Hunt, & Goetz, 2001).
12. Hunt and colleagues (2003) document the effectiveness of collaboration as a
strategy for improving student outcomes in inclusive settings in two different
studies. Researchers documented that the teaming of teachers, related service
providers, and parents in implementing support plans for students with severe
disabilities and typical peers considered academically at-risk is successful.
13. A study conducted by Robertson, Chamberlain, and Kasari (2003) in
Whitbread (2015) asserts that when teachers have positive perceptions of their
relationship with students with disabilities, the students’ behavior problems
diminished and the students were more socially involved with peers.
14. Teacher’s attitudes have been identified as one of several elements that are
critical in promoting the success of students with disabilities in general
education settings. (Prater, 2003).
15. Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) found that teachers generally
supported co-teaching.
Based on research, teachers’ attitudes is a critical element in the success of
inclusion. Most teachers tend to admit that they are not prepared to deal with disabled
students. Teachers believe that special education teachers are the ones responsible for the
progress of students with special needs. It is also indicated that teachers require support,
resources and time for accomplishing the task of differentiation in the classroom. In
69
addition to research related to teachers’ attitudes, students’ academic gain in inclusive
classrooms has also been investigated; and the results indicate that:
1. Educating children with disabilities in a general education setting with access
to the general education curriculum requires careful planning and preparation.
(Deno, 1997; King Spears, 1997; Scott, Vitale & Masten, 1998 in Whitbread,
2015). Several reviews and meta-analyses consistently report little or no
benefit for students when they are placed in special education settings.
(Kavale, K.A., Glass, G.V., 1982) (Madden and Slavin, 1983)
2. Meta-analyses confirm a small to moderate beneficial effect of inclusion
education on the academic and social outcome of special needs students.
(Carlberg, C. and Kavale, K. 1980)
3. Although separate classes, with lower student-to-teacher ratios, controlled
environments, and specially trained staff would seem to offer benefits to a
child with a disability, research fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of such
programs. (Lipsky, 1997) (Sailor, 2003)
4. There is increasing evidence that, other than a smaller class size, “there is
little that is special about the special education system,” and that the negative
effects of separating children with disabilities from their peers far outweigh
any benefit to smaller classes. (Audette & Algozzine, 1997 in Whitbread,
2015)
5. Students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms show academic gains in a
number of areas, including improved performance on standardized tests,
70
mastery of IEP goals, grades, on-task behavior and motivation to learn.
(National Center for Education Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995)
6. Placement in inclusive classrooms does not interfere with the academic
performance of students without disabilities with respect to the amount of
allocated time and engaged instructional time, the rate of interruption to
planned activities, and students’ achievement on test scores and report card
grades. (York, Vandercook, MacDonald, Heise-Neff, and Caughey, 1992)
7. Soukup et al. (2007) conclude that students receiving instruction in general
education were significantly more likely to be working on activities linked to
the general education standards, although they were doing so without the
types of adaptations that research suggests is critical for making progress.
8. Slavin, Madden, & Leavy (1984) found that math scores for students with and
without disabilities increased by nearly half a grade level as a result of
working in cooperative learning groups.
9. Slavin, Madden, & Leavy (1984) in Whitbread (2015) found that math scores
for students with and without disabilities increased by nearly half a grade level
as a result of working in cooperative learning groups.
10. Children with intellectual disabilities educated in general education settings
have been found to score higher on literacy measures than students educated
in segregated settings. (Buckley, 2000)
11. The use of graphic organizers, study guides, and computer accommodations
resulted in significantly improved performances on tests and quizzes for
students with and without disabilities. (Horton, Lovitt, & Berglund, 1990)
71
12. Meta-analyses and comparative studies examining the educational outcomes
of students with low incidence disabilities in inclusive versus segregated
classrooms have found either no difference in outcomes or positive effects for
inclusion. (Hunt & Goetz, 1997)
13. In the area of academic progress, Waldron, Cole, and Majd (2001) report that
more students without disabilities made comparable or greater gains in math
and reading when taught in inclusive settings vis-à-vis traditional classrooms
where no students with disabilities are included.
14. Walther-Thomas et al. (1996) found benefits for both special and general
education students in a three-year study of elementary inclusive settings where
co-teaching was practiced.
15. Academic benefits for general education students include having additional
special education staff in the classroom, providing small-group, individualized
instruction, and assisting in the development of academic adaptations for all
students who need them. (Hunt, 2000)
16. Researchers and advocates of inclusion have placed a considerable amount of
focus on meeting students’ needs through individualized instruction and
adaptations of the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.
(Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Browder, 2007) Thus, special
educators are typically responsible for retrofitting lessons (i.e., modifying the
curriculum, providing intervention, teaching remedial skills) that have been
designed by the general education teacher.
72
According to the findings of the investigations carried out, it can be affirmed that
students with disabilities have academic progress when placed in inclusive classrooms. It
is also exposed that inclusion requires the collaboration of all the people responsible of
the students’ learning process. Resources are also of great importance for inclusion to be
successful. As stated initially, some meta-analyses and comparative studies examining
the educational outcomes of students with low incidence disabilities in inclusive versus
segregated classrooms have found either no difference in outcomes or positive effects for
inclusion. (Hunt & Goetz, 1997) Therefore, evidence is not conclusive and it is still
questionable. Concerning the questionable results of research, Salend (2001), like many
investigators who examine research on the effectiveness of inclusion, reports mixed
results. Some studies show increased academic performance of students with disabilities
in inclusive settings while others question inclusion’s effectiveness. Similarly, some
studies report positive social gains for students with disabilities in the regular classroom,
while others report that students included have experienced isolation and frustration.
The aspect of socialization has also been investigated, and the research carried out
by various investigators affirms the following:
1. In several studies focused on students with mild disabilities, the use of peer-
mediated strategies results in improved academic outcomes for all students
including those considered at-risk academically. (Sailor, 2002)
2. There is increasing evidence that, other than a smaller class size, “there is
little that is special about the special education system,” and that the negative
effects of separating children with disabilities from their peers far outweigh
any benefit to smaller classes. (Audette & Algozzine, 1997)
73
3. Peer support interventions are also emerging as an effective alternative to
traditional paraprofessional support models for students with low incidence
disabilities. (Carter, Cushing, Clark & Kennedy, 2005)
4. Data from the investigation showed an increase in social interaction as well as
an increase in the amount of time students with disabilities were engaged in
activities aligned with the general curriculum. (Carter, Cushing, Clark &
Kennedy, 2005)
5. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) report that students demonstrate higher
levels of social interaction with typical peers.
6. Kliewer and Biklen (2001) found that inclusive learning environments eased
the acquisition of literacy and adaptive skills as well as increasing students’
social relationships.
7. Salend and Duhaney (1999) also report that academic performance is equal to
or better in inclusive settings for general education students, including high
achievers.
8. The finding that engaged time for typical learners is not negatively impacted
by the presence of students with severe disabilities was also replicated in other
studies. (Peltier, 1997; Staub & Peck, 1995)
9. Peer tutoring resulted in significant increases in spelling, social studies and
other academic areas for students with and without disabilities. (Maheady et
al., 1988; Pomerantz et al., 1994).
10. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) found out that inclusion does not
compromise general education students’ outcomes, peers benefit from
74
involvement and relationships with students who have disabilities in inclusive
settings, and that the presence of students with disabilities in general
education classrooms show the way to new learning opportunities for typical
students.
Without a doubt, research points out that when students with disabilities are
placed in an inclusive setting, the aspect of socialization (peer tutoring, sharing, peer
support, and cooperative group work) helps them gain academically and socially.
Students with special needs tend to be motivated in inclusive classrooms and receive
support from peers and teachers. They also develop their own skills and have greater
accomplishments. In the inclusive setting students learn to value themselves and others as
unique individuals. Social functioning is improved because they learn to tolerate
individual differences and have a better understanding of them.
Overview
This chapter examined the definition of the term inclusion. It also provided a brief
history of inclusion and the changes of paradigm concerning the placement of students
with disabilities. Additionally, this chapter included what research asserts concerning
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, academic gains of students with disabilities and
socialization in the inclusive setting. It also tried to reconcile some aspects the English
language and inclusion. Chapter three will present and explain the methodology that will
be used in this investigation.
75
Chapter Three
Introduction
This qualitative, non-experimental study is focused on exploring teachers’ and
parents’ perspectives towards inclusion in the English as a second language regular
classroom. It aims to investigate the actual situation in the ESL classroom concerning
this phenomenon of inclusion in selected high schools located in an eastern school district
of Puerto Rico.
This chapter will include the research methodology, which will specify the
research philosophy, the research approach and the research design. I t will also describe
the participants (sample), the data collection methods or instruments, and the procedure
to be followed. This investigation has ethical considerations or requirements that will be
safeguarded. The confidentiality and anonymity of the participants will be protected.
The risks and benefits will also be revealed if applicable.
Methodology
Research Methodology. Methodology has to do with the way knowledge is
gained. Brown (2006) provides the following definition: “Methodology is the
philosophical framework within which the research is conducted or the foundation upon
which the research is based”. It focuses on the specific ways or methods used to try to
understand the surrounding world better. Research philosophy is associated with
clarification of assumption about the source of knowledge. All studies or investigations
that are carried out are based on some kind of assumptions about the world and the ways
of understanding it. Allan and Randy (2005) assert that when carrying out a research,
methodology should meet the following two criteria: firstly, the methodology should be
76
the most appropriate to achieve objectives of the research; secondly, it should be possible
to replicate the methodology used in other researches of the same nature. The
methodology of this study is non-experimental and it will totally relate to its objective,
that is, to gain knowledge and understanding of the process of inclusion as it is
experienced in the ESL classrooms from the point of view of teachers and parents that are
the ones that are actively participating in this process on a daily basis.
Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Gustav Jung (1955) was assertive when he stated
“Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from
experimental psychology.” Not all things can be understood by measuring them
(quantitative methods). Phenomenon cannot be measured. In non-experimental studies
such as this one, the data is usually non-numerical and analyzed using non-statistical
techniques.
Research Philosophy. The main philosophy of this study is phenomenology.
Van Manen (1990) indicates that “the aim of phenomenological research is to aspire to
pure self-expression, with non-interference from the researcher.” (p.37). The
phenomenological approach is totally related to the area of research of this study and
standpoint concerning the approach that should be made to the problem that will be
explored. In phenomenological studies, the researcher takes into account subjective
human interests and focuses on grasping deep meanings, explores each individual case
entirely, and the ideas are developed by induction from data. Phenomenology
emphasizes on people’s subjective experiences and interpretations in this case of
inclusion in the school environment, that is, the phenomenologist wants to understand
how the world appears to others. This type of study focuses on experiences, events and
77
occurrences. In other words, in phenomenological studies ideas are generated from a
great amount of data by means of induction. The perspectives of the participants will
have their clear reflection on the study.
The advantages associated with phenomenology include better understanding of
meanings that experiences have for people and its contribution to the development of new
theories. The disadvantages presented by Max Van Manen (1997) are:
1. The subjectivity of the data leads to difficulties in establishing reliability
and validity of approaches and information.
2. It is difficult to detect or to prevent researcher induced bias.
3. There can be difficulty in ensuring pure bracketing. This can lead to
interference in the interpretation of the data.
4. The presentation of results, as the highly qualitative nature of the results
can make them difficult to present in a manner usable by practitioners.
5. Phenomenology does not produce generalizable data.
6. Because the samples are generally very small, it cannot be said that the
experiences are typical.
7. On a practical note, it is important to consider the possible difficulties of
participants expressing themselves.
8. Participants need to be interested and articulate problems that can cause
difficulties in being able to express themselves include foreign language,
age, and embarrassment. (p. #)
Some other disadvantages may be: difficulty in understanding people’s meanings,
the interpretation and analysis of the data obtained may be difficult, and the need to
78
adjust to new issues that emerge during the study. In addition, it may be hard to control
the pace and the outcomes of the study, and more time and other resources may be
required for data collection and presentation. In the end, what really counts is
experiencing the phenomenon through the profound understanding of the participants’
experiences.
Research Approach. This investigation has an inductive approach. It does not
entail formulation of hypotheses. It starts with research questions, aims and objectives
that need to be achieved during the research process. Some characteristics of this type of
approach are that qualitative type of data is collected, research findings cannot be
generalized, and there is exploration of the meaning given to human experiences. The
context under study is deeply explored. Inductive also refers to the analysis of data and
examination of problems within their own environment rather than from existing theory.
The approach moves from the specific to the general informally called “bottom up.” The
researcher begins with specific observations of the learning environment, proceeds to
detect patterns and regularities, formulates some tentative ideas that can be explored, and
finally, ends up developing some general conclusions.
Research Design. The research design is qualitative and exploratory. Qualitative
research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study
social and cultural phenomena. (Myers, 1997). This study seeks to explore through
research questions, self-reports and aesthetic expressions (art, drawings or narratives), the
phenomenon of inclusion as experienced by teachers and parents in various high schools
in an eastern school district of Puerto Rico. Its goal is not to offer final and conclusive
solutions to the problem exposed. This topic has been explored for decades and will be
79
carried out to explore the current situation in the ELL classrooms at the high school level,
and to have a clear insight of what teachers and parents are actually experiencing in that
specific setting. It will further narrate the expressions of these participants textually
without any interference. This design will help to determine the nature of the problem
and gain a better understanding of it. This research will simply explore the research
questions permitting further researches on this problem contrary to conclusive researches.
Qualitative techniques are extremely useful and flexible when a subject is too
complex such as inclusion. According to Johnson (2001), non-experimental studies fall
under the category of being descriptive when the primary focus for the research is to
describe some phenomenon or to document its characteristics. Such studies are needed in
order to document the status quo or do a needed assessment in a given area of interest.
This type of method is not as dependent on sample sizes as quantitative methods and can
generate meaningful results with a small sample group such as this study.
Population (Sampling). The choice of sampling method decides the precision of
research findings, trustworthiness and validity of the study and has immense implications
on the overall quality of this phenomenological study. The sampling method to be used
in this investigation is the judgment sampling method. Black (2010) describes judgment
sampling as a non-probability sampling method that occurs when “elements selected for
the sample are chosen by the judgment of the researcher.” (p. 225). Researchers often
believe that they can obtain a representative sample by using a sound judgment. This
sampling method is used when only limited numbers of people can serve as primary data
sources due to the nature of research design and aims and objectives. This type of
sampling method is sometimes called purposive, selective or subjective sampling. The
80
members of the population (six teachers) must have at least five years of experience with
the phenomenon of inclusion and must be licensed in the areas studied (English and
Special Education). The three parents can be selected randomly but must have a student
that has been part of the Special Education Program for least three years. The sample
must belong to the high school level and to the eastern district selected. Teachers must
be presently working for the Department of Education.
Qualitative Research. Qualitative research deals with phenomena that is
difficult or impossible to quantify such as meanings, beliefs, perceptions attributes among
others. Ross (1999) in Hunt, C. (2015) posits that qualitative approaches to research are
based on a “world view,” which is holistic and has the following beliefs: there is not a
single reality, reality is based upon perceptions that are different for each person and
change over time, and what we know has meaning only within a given situation of
context. Research aims to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study.
The results of qualitative research are majorly descriptive. The power of qualitative
research is its ability to provide complex textual descriptions of how people experience a
given research subject. According to the Qualitative Research Consultant Association
(2015), there are several unique aspects of qualitative research that contribute to rich,
insightful results:
1. Synergy among respondents, as they build on each other’s comments and
ideas.
2. The dynamic nature of the interview or group discussion process, which
engages respondents more actively than is possible in more structured
survey.
81
3. The opportunity to probe (“Help me understand why you feel that way”)
enabling the researcher to reach beyond initial responses and rationales.
4. The opportunity to observe, record and interpret non-verbal communication
(i.e., body language, voice intonation) as part of a respondent’s feedback,
which is valuable during interviews or discussions, and during analysis.
5. The opportunity to engage respondents in “play,” such as projective
techniques and exercises, overcoming the self-consciousness that can
inhibit spontaneous reactions and comments. (p. 1)
Participants. The participants of this study will be three licensed secondary level
teachers with more than five years of experience at the high school level with students of
Special Education integrated in their regular ELL classrooms. Three licensed Special
Education teachers with more than five years of experience at the high school level will
also be participating under voluntary conditions. This study also includes three parents of
students that have belonged to the Special Education program for at least three
consecutive years and are actually at the high school level and will be randomly selected.
Instruments. This qualitative research in the education field will exclusively rely
on the following methods for gathering information: in-depth interviews (semi-
structured) to gather the participants’ descriptions of their experience, or the participants’
written or oral self-report, or even their aesthetic expressions (art, narratives, or poetry)
that are optimal for collecting data on individuals’ personal perspectives and experiences,
particularly when sensitive topics such as inclusion are being explored. Self-reports and
aesthetic expressions (art, drawings or narratives) will also be used to allow the free
expression of the participants. The researcher will not interfere with the participants’
82
expressions. Their identity will be kept anonymous by using pseudonyms. The
participants will receive a letter inviting them to participate in the study. They will also
receive an informative sheet that explains the details concerning the investigation. The
investigator will clarify all the doubts that the participants might have. The interviews
will be carried out individually. The individual interviews will be conducted in English
for the English teachers and in Spanish for the Special Education teachers and the
parents. The interviews will be carried out in the schools where the participants work and
during non-working hours. The interviews will be transcribed ad verbatim.
Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement. The researcher will visit the
various schools to be included in this study in order to obtain the selected participants’
oral consent personally once identified. The participants will have all the information
that they request concerning their participation. They will be given a letter inviting them
to be part of the study. If they agree to participate voluntarily, they will be handed an
informative sheet containing all the essential information of the study and the interviews
will be scheduled. Participants will be oriented thoroughly. The participants will
determine the place and time of the interviews preferably in their respective schools.
After the data is collected and the interviews transcribed, the participants will receive a
copy of their transcribed interviews to be read and accepted as a means of triangulation.
All the obtained information will be confidential and no one will have access to the
documents except the investigator. Once the study is concluded, the transcriptions will
be safeguarded at the investigator’s home for five years as required by protocol, and then,
the transcriptions will be shredded. The interview audio files will be erased immediately
after the transcriptions are corroborated individually by each participant. They will be
83
identified with pseudonyms to protect their identities. All the transcriptions will be
identified with the pseudonyms assigned to each participant.
Procedure. The authorization for the investigation required by the Department of
Education and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) will be obtained. Once these permits
are issued, the researcher will initiate the process of data collection and investigation.
The initial step will be to make contact with the District’s Superintendent to explain all
the details of the study. Once all the permits needed are obtained, the researcher will visit
the various schools to be included in this study to meet with the possible participants.
The participants will be given a letter requiring them to be part of the investigation and an
informative sheet with all the details of the study. The investigator will clarify any
doubts that the participants might have and identify those that agree to participate
voluntarily. The contributors will have all the information that they request concerning
their participation. After they agree to participate voluntarily, the interviews will be
scheduled. Participants will be oriented thoroughly. Each interview will last fifty
minutes. There will be two interviews per participant, and they will be carried out in
accordance with the new guidelines provided by the Department of Education in Circular
Letter 13-2014-2015 entitled: Directrices y disposiciones para radicar la solicitud de
autorización para realizar investigaciones y sus fases relacionadas: la validación de
instrumentos o pruebas piloto en el Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico
[Guidelines and Provisions to File the Petition of Authorization to Perform Investigations
and its Related Stages: the Validation of Instruments or Pilot Tests in the Department of
Education of Puerto Rico]. When the data is collected and the interviews transcribed,
participants will receive a copy to be read and accepted as a means of triangulation.
84
After the transcriptions are corroborated by the participants, the audio files will be
deleted. The data will be analyzed and categorized. The transcriptions will be kept safely
at the investigator’s home. After five years, the transcriptions will be shredded. The
Department of Education will be given a copy of the findings and conclusions drawn.
Data Analysis. The data collected from qualitative research such as this
phenomenological study is not open to statistical analysis. The researcher must examine
the data and organize it in a meaningful way. The investigator must also interpret what
the compiled information means. The focus of phenomenological studies is the
understanding of the meaning of the descriptions made by the participants of the study.
The goal is to get the essential meaning of the experiences of these participants that
obviously will be different due to their distinct roles. Interviews will be analyzed
differently than narratives or artistic presentations of the topic under study. The
researcher must try to remain harmonious with the meaning of the descriptions and
answers given by the participants. Grasping categories or themes from data analyzed is
essential. This has been called categorization, coding, abstraction of themes, thematic
analysis and so forth. To maintain a rigorous process, the researcher will analyze the data
based on Corbin and Strauss (2007) open coding process. This process is used to
categorize data. According to Corbin and Strauss (2007), open coding is the process of
examining data, breaking then down, comparing them, and categorizing them. The
researcher must visualize the patterns that arise among the coded data. The interviews
will be transcribed ad verbatim. The next step will be to examine the transcriptions to
identify categories or themes that are similar. After that, categories will be identified and
listed in order to better ascertain patterns among the themes presented in the study.
85
Categories identified through this research process will be classified as perceptions
regarding the practice of inclusion in the secondary level schools. Categories will be
examined first in an attempt to determine to what specific research question do they
belong. These categories and findings will be answering each research question initially
posted in this study. This complete coding process will provide structure to the analysis
and facilitate the interpretation and the reduction of data obtained. Finally, the research
questions will be answered.
Risks and Benefits of the Study. The risks of this study are minimum.
Participants might experience weariness or tension. The participants will remain
anonymous throughout the process and will never be identified in any way. Pseudonyms
will be used to identify the participants. This study is conducted in order to gain insight
and gather feedback that will convey the opinions and the impressions of teachers and
parents regarding the inclusive process, and provide suggestions as to what is needed to
improve said process. All the collected information, transcriptions and audio files will be
kept safe for five years by the researcher in a safe place at the researcher’s home and no
one will have access to them. Afterwards, they will be properly disposed of.
Overview
This chapter contained the research methodology (the research philosophy,
research approach and research design). It also described the participants, the data
collection methods or instruments and the procedure to be followed. It provided
information about the population of the study. The chapter ended with a brief description
of the manner in which the participants will be protected. Chapter Four will include the
research findings.
86
Chapter Four
Introduction
This phenomenological study had three major purposes. The first purpose was to
analyze the perspectives of the inclusion paradigm that the participants of the study are
undergoing and narrate them just as experienced by them. The second purpose was to
point out the virtues, limitations or needs that the Special Education program may have
according to the participants. The third purpose was to draw attention to the barriers that
are precluding the progress of the inclusion paradigm and offer recommendations and
new findings to the people concerned with effective educational practices and
administrators seeking to improve the offerings made to students with disabilities. Van
Manen (1990) indicates that “the aim of phenomenological research is to aspire to pure
self-expression, with non-interference from the researcher.” The goal of this study is not
to offer final and conclusive solutions to a problem that has been exposed for decades and
varies through time. This study explored the actual situation in the ELL classrooms at
high school level to obtain a clear insight of what teachers and parents are actually going
through in that specific setting. Ross (1999) in Hunt, C. (2015) remark that qualitative
approaches to research are based on a “world view” which is holistic and has the
following beliefs: there is not a single reality, as reality is based upon perceptions that are
different for each person and change over time, and what we know has meaning only
within a given situation of context. The researcher sought to grasp the essential meaning
of the experiences with inclusion of these participants. The researcher remained
harmonious with the meaning of the descriptions and answers given by the participants.
Grasping categories or themes from analyzed data is essential. This has been called
87
categorization, coding, abstraction of themes, thematic analysis and so forth. This
process was completed and the categories specified.
The research questions stated in the first chapter to be answered were:
1. What are the perspectives of the English as Second Language teachers on the
inclusion process in their classroom?
2. What are the perspectives of the Special Education teachers on the inclusion
process in the ELL classroom?
3. What are the perspectives of the parents on the inclusion process in the ELL
classroom?
4. What are the suggestions made by all three categories of participants to
improve the inclusion process in the ELL classroom?
5. What factors complicate or obstruct the inclusive practice in the ELL
classroom?
Participants and Categories Identified
This chapter offers the answers given by the participants to the questions made
during the semi-structured interviews. The questions addressed the ESL and the Special
Education high school teachers’ perceptions of inclusion in the selected public high
schools in the Las Piedras district in Puerto Rico. The perspectives of the parents were
also taken into consideration to fully understand this paradigm. In two cases, follow-up
questions were made to clarify the participants’ intended answers. The results of the
interviews were synthesized into categories according to the themes that emerged based
on Corbin and Strauss open coding process. These patterns or common arguments were
88
organized into categories. The categories that arose according to the participant’s
responses were:
1. General perceptions and effectiveness of the inclusion process
2. Resources and support system
3. Teaching-learning processes
4. Barriers barring success of the inclusive process
5. Suggestions to improve the inclusive process in the ELL Classroom
Participants in the study were selected based on judgment sampling. To assure
confidentiality, their names were kept anonymous and they were assigned pseudonyms.
Teachers are licensed in their respective subject areas and have been working with
inclusion for eight years or more. The participants are actually working with inclusion at
a public high school in the selected district. Norma, Monica and Mr. English are the
pseudonyms given to the ESL teachers. Norma has been working with students that
belong to the Special Education Program for thirteen years, Monica for twenty-eight
years and Mr. English for eleven years. They have experienced the changes that the
Special Education program has undergone. They described the changes as constant but
slow. Sandra, Elizabeth and Clara are the pseudonyms given to the three Special
Education teachers. Sandra and Clara have been working for fifteen years with special
needs students and Elizabeth has been working with disabled students for eight years.
All the Special Education teachers have a Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree in their area of
specialization. These teachers have assigned classrooms. Their rooms are small in size
and can accommodate only small amount of students. Parents were randomly selected
and were required to have a child that belonged to the Special Education Program for
89
three years or more at the high school level and that he/she is actually receiving services
from the Special Education program. The pseudonyms given to the parents were Pedro,
Eloísa and Nilda. The parents have had their children in the Special Education program
since they started studying at the elementary school. Their children’s disabilities were
diagnosed as infants. These parents have high school preparation or more. Based on the
interviews carried out, it can be said that they are considerably knowledgeable of the
processes of the Special Education Program. Table 3 is a summary of teachers’
demographic information. Table 4 is a summary of parents’ demographic information.
Table 3
Teachers’ Demographic Information
Name Gender Specialty
Certified
Years of
Teaching
Experience
Years of
Inclusive
Practice
Highest Degree
earned
Sandra
Elizabeth
Clara
Norma
Monica
Mr. English
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Special Ed.
Special Ed.
Special Ed.
English
English
English
15
10
15
13
24
11
15
8
15
13
28
11
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Master’s
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Master’s
Table 4
Parents’ Demographic Information
Name Gender Role Years of
Inclusion
Experience
Highest Degree
earned
Pedro
Eloísa
Nilda
Male
Female
Female
Parent
Parent
Parent
11
11
11
High School
University
(3 years)
Technical Degree
90
Data Analysis (Analysis of semi-structured interviews)
Analysis of semi-structured interviews to ESL Teachers. The ESL teachers
interviewed are licensed to work in the Department of Education of Puerto Rico as
English teachers with secondary level students. Their working experience ranges from
thirteen to twenty-eight years. They have been working with the paradigms of integration
and inclusion for 10 years or more. The ESL teachers indicated that they did not receive
university courses that would prepared them to deal with the great amount of learning
limitations that students with disabilities have that arise in the classroom. They added
that they only received a general orientation in a course titled the Exceptional Child given
during their preparation for their bachelor’s degree. They remarked that this course
lasted 5 months (one semester). Two teachers have a master’s degree with their
specialties in teaching English as a Second Language and one has a bachelor’s degree.
The two teachers that have a master’s degree did not receive any course related to
addressing students with special needs at that level. Only one teacher mentioned taking a
workshop about Multiple Intelligences.
The first research question established in this investigation was: What are the
perspectives of the English as Second Language teachers of the inclusion process in their
classroom? The first category that stemmed from this investigation was the general
perceptions that teachers had concerning the inclusion paradigm and its effectiveness at
high school level. The answers they provided concerning this category are presented in
this section.
91
A. Category I: General perceptions and effectiveness of the inclusion process.
The three participants (Norma, Monica and Mr. English) were asked to provide a
definition for the concepts of integration, inclusion and segregation. They all provided
the same meaning for the concept segregation. They all stated that it meant separation.
The state or condition of being set apart, separated, or restricted to one group is the
definition that contains the elements that these participants used. The concepts inclusion
and segregation were partially clear to these participants.
Norma said: “the concept integration refers to the incorporation of the students
that belong to the Special Education Program to the regular classrooms receiving services
from a Special Education teacher and inclusion refers to having the disabled students be
part of the regular mainstream receiving all the needed services and with their daily
assistance to the Special Education classroom.”
Monica stated “integration is when a student with disability is assigned to a
regular group part of the day and inclusion is being assigned to a regular group most of
the day.”
Mr. English stated that “integration refers to the incorporation of students with
needs with non-disabled students in the classroom and that inclusion meant to be
incorporated in the mainstream at all times with the help of the Special Education teacher
in the period assigned.”
The ESL teachers were asked to mention the requirements of the Department of
Education concerning the teaching-learning processes of the students with disabilities in
the ELL classroom. The teachers indicated that the Department of Education only
requires them to differentiate their teaching process and to provide the accommodations
92
specified by their individualized educational program (IEP). The three participants
specified that they always received a list of the accommodations they had to carry out at
the beginning of each school year and were generally oriented about the services that the
Special Education Program provides. Both general and special education teachers must
collaborate to create learning strategies and environments that work for all students.
Related service personnel, including speech therapists, occupational therapists, physical
therapists and school psychologist will be expected to deliver their services in the general
education environment rather than in therapy rooms and will need to incorporate their
services into the general education curriculum and schedule. (Ferguson, Ralph, & Katul
in Whitbread, 2015).
These participants were asked if they felt prepared to deal with students with
special needs. All of the participants made it clear that they did not feel prepared to deal
with so many different interventions in the limited time they had to impart their lessons.
These teachers said that they needed help to deal with the students that belonged to the
Special Education Program and that most of the time they worked alone. Braunsteir and
Mariano Lapidus (2014) also believe that to facilitate inclusive thinking and acting, we
must provide all teacher candidates, school leaders and administrators with knowledge
about diversity and the pedagogy needed to initiate their practice with confidence.
Teachers stated that there was an imminent need for various things such as: personnel to
prepare materials, equipment, manipulative materials and other sources that were useful
for blind students and other students with different requirements. They stated that the
resources had to be efficiently allocated to serve these students. Research shows that
principals, superintendents, teachers, parents and community members must all be
93
involved and invested in the successful outcome of inclusive education (Villa, 1997,
Walther-Thomas, 1997 in Whitbread, 2015) not only regular classroom teachers. Finally
they remarked that they needed exercises of all levels to help them accommodate the
curriculum for these students.
Monica pointed out that “teachers have so much paper work to carry out and have
limited or no time to create and prepare materials to be able to differentiate learning
activities. Planning is extremely time-consuming, especially when teachers have more
than one grade level. Differentiating instruction requires time and preparation of new
exercises and materials. Without a doubt, regular classrooms are the ideal environment
for Special Education students. I have not experienced a bullying situation yet.
Concerning the least restrictive environment, I have to say that not all students can be in a
regular classroom. Some of these cases are complex and require the intervention of
specialists. Regular teachers are not even aware of their disability and how to handle
them properly when they are so many. This year I am teaching more than thirty in my
five groups. The amount of time that we have is not enough to carry out all the tasks
required by the Department of Education. Teachers have a lot going on in their
classrooms everyday such as: registering attendance electronically, grading papers,
assisting students, tutoring students, attending to cited parents, administering tests,
planning, tabulating test results, preparing activities, photocopying exercises, making
research, attending meetings, creating PowerPoint presentations and many other activities
required of them in a short period of time. Many teachers continue their work at home. It
is time that the people that have knowledge of the specific conditions of these students be
required to provide materials that can help these students overcome their learning
94
limitations. The students should be constantly evaluated and remedial help provided at
the different grades. At high school level, they should already be almost prepared to deal
with the outside world and its requirements.”
Norma replied: “I try to do as best as I can to help these students. The regular
classroom is the best place for those that do not exhibit critical or severe conditions. I
have to accept my limitations and that is one: I cannot handle conditions that I do not
know how to handle. As an English teacher, it is difficult. Making adaptations to the
curriculum for gifted and for disabled students makes a difficult job even harder. I really
do not have the time to create activities, search for graphics and prepare activities to
differentiate my lessons. Planning and grading papers, tabulating and many others tasks
that we have daily makes it impossible to accomplished what is being required in such a
limited time. Let me tell you I am not Wonder Woman and I am not going to take work
home in order to be considered efficient. My family deserves my attention and quality
time also.”
Mr. English stated: “not all the years are the same, it depends on the amount of
Special Education students assigned to the groups, the type of disabilities within a group
and the workload we have. The regular classroom is a good place for them because they
can share in equal conditions as everyone deserves. If my students have very mild
disabilities, I assign them tutors and have them work in groups. If the disability is
beyond moderate then I usually communicate with their parents or make suggestions to
be followed by the Special Education teacher. The problem is that the Special Education
teacher is not required to cover the subject I teach. In addition, I do not have the
knowledge that the Special Education teacher has of all these learning disabilities and
95
how to handle the individual situations. I always provide the accommodations required
in their individualized educational program. I try to do whatever I can for their
understanding of the daily lessons even though I am not properly prepared to understand
all these learning problems.”
Weisel and Tur-Kaspa (2002) in Whitbread (2015) state that the amount of
success students with special needs can have from inclusion heavily relies on general
education teachers’ attitudes towards them. The three ESL teachers were asked if they
thought that the inclusion process in the school was being effective and what conditions
caused them difficulty. They all believe that the inclusion paradigm is effective for
students with mild or moderate disabilities. Peck, Donaldson, and Pezzoli (1990) carried
out semi-structured interviews with 21 high school pupils without disabilities and
concentrated on their social relationships with classmates with moderate and severe
disabilities. The findings showed many positive outcomes but it also found that some
non-disabled pupils experienced discomfort when working together with pupils with
moderate and severe disabilities. The three teachers indicated that students with specific
learning problems and moderate disabilities usually work fine and benefit with the social
interaction with their non-disabled peers. One of the teachers simply said “They treat
them well.” They stated that students with severe disabilities or disruptive behavior will
not benefit of inclusion and that their attention spans are very limited or non-existent.
Mr. English immediately reacted by saying “that is too complicated.” De Simone &
Parmar (2006) stated that teachers believe that disabled students entail extra time,
resources and planning, all of which, conversely, limit their capability to teach students
96
without identified disabilities. Concerning this matter, their expressions were the
following:
Norma: “I have been working for many years with students with special needs. I
believe that the students with specific learning problems and mild disabilities benefit the
most. They are able to socialize and work peer to peer during the learning process and
they learn from their non-disabled peers. Students with severe disabilities such as
blindness, retardation and autism do not benefit as much from being in the regular
classroom as the ones with mild conditions. They require other interventions and follow
up from specialists. They also need individual follow up most of the time that I cannot
provide in a classroom full of students limited within the language being taught. English
teachers have greater difficulties in Puerto Rico because English is not their first
language.”
Monica: “I do believe in equal rights. Students with disabilities have the same
rights as regular students. People must understand that these different concepts of
integration, inclusion and so on should not even exist. Students are all the same and
deserve the same education. Differentiating instruction is ideal but it requires teachers’
preparation, willingness and time. Everyone is not the same, some need more
intervention and follow up. These students with severe disabilities should not be left out,
yet they require support by trained personnel. Like most of the situations, it demands
funding and assigning specialists to help them succeed. Teachers’ attitudes make an
enormous difference. The thing is that we constitute an overworked staff. In Puerto Rico,
the workload is excessive and the salary is miserable. If teachers’ working conditions do
97
not improve, their attitudes towards additional requirements are not going to be
receptive.”
Mr. English: “Regular students usually help those with limitations and provide
feedback to their peers if they are required to. Most of my students are very cooperative
with their disabled peers. They help them copy the information, tutor them and even
check their notebooks to see if they have all the exercises done. Concerning their degree
of disability, I believe that students with mild or moderate disabilities benefit the most.
Students with severe disabilities should receive special treatment by specialist and
incorporated in certain areas or subjects only if possible for the benefit of socializing and
learning other skills that are essential in life.”
Teachers were asked about the different interventions or techniques that were
useful to work with Special Education students and how they change their teaching
techniques to accommodate for differences. Irmsher (1995) indicates that “one of the
most critical disadvantages of inclusion is that educators and parents of children in
general education worry that full inclusion will lower the standard of learning for the
class and make it less of a priority than socializing.” (p. 3). The three English teachers
stated that they made simple exercises that included graphics and they used a larger font.
They also made instructions simple and their requirements were minimized. Johnson
(2001) states that “students who are considered lower achieving tend to have less contact
with the general education teachers altogether, and what little contact they do have is
usually not positive.” (p. 230). These teachers used cooperative working groups and
assigned a leader that was knowledgeable of the English language to help the students
with special needs. They also used think-pair-share activities and assigned English
98
speaking students to help those that have difficulties with the subject. They pointed out
that they usually do not have time to work individually with students that have special
needs because most of their students have difficulties while learning a second language.
The teachers reported that their time was limited and help from others was non-existent.
According to these educators the only thing they could do was explain in a very simple
way for all of them to understand and provide examples that could be understood easily.
Researchers and advocates of inclusion have placed a considerable amount of
focus on meeting students’ needs through individualized instruction and adaptations of
the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. (Spooner et al., 2007).
These researchers add that “special educators are typically responsible for retrofitting
lessons (modifying the curriculum, providing intervention, teaching remedial skills) that
have been designed by the general education teacher.” ESL teachers verbalized that
Special Education teachers did not provide follow up to their subject and that these
special educators did not take courses to prepare them for that. Concerning these matters,
the educators responded the following:
“In my classroom, everyone receives the help that they need. My students are
aware that not everyone learns the same way and that they have to be tolerant and lend a
hand. I have to say that it is not easy: some of my students feel bored by the slow pace I
sometimes assume. Other students feel they are held back from learning new things until
the whole group masters the material. Special Education teachers do not come to my
classroom unless they need something. Whatever these students learn depends on me.
Adapting the class to so many different requirements can only be done if a teacher has an
assistant. I have been lucky to have students in each group that are bilingual and can help
99
the others that do not understand. It is not always that way for the majority of the
teachers. I have heard about some students that bully students with special needs, they
make fun of them.” (Monica)
“I use assessment for these kids. Sometimes formal testing is not adequate to
determine if they understand the skills covered. Cooperative group work seems to fit fine
for this purpose. The students accomplish a great deal helping each other. Most of the
students with specific learning problems are very communicative and they feel confident
letting me know if they do not understand. I look for ways to help them.” (Norma).
“At the beginning of the school year, I have a clear idea of the students that I have
been assigned. I begin by determining their interests. Most of them are inclined towards
subjects such as music, friendship, movies, videos and technology. I try to incorporate
subjects of interest to them, especially the arts. That is a way of gaining their attention,
and then the learning of the various skills is simplified. Students with disabilities usually
have the same difficulties as regular students unless their disability is severe. English is
not easy to learn for non-native speakers. Most of my students have difficulties because
they are usually afraid to communicate in the targeted language. Spanish is their first
language. Special Education students confront two problems: their disability and their
limitations with the language as my regular students. It is extremely necessary that the
Department of Education makes a contract with a company that can create and provide
textbooks and activities for students with different disabilities, especially blind ones. I
only have regular textbooks for non-disabled students.” (Mr. English)
The disabilities vary and each case is unique. The teachers were asked about the
different types of disabilities they had worked with and the ones they considered the most
100
complex. They were also asked to mention any case that they considered difficult or
unique and why. The ESL teachers agreed that they treated each case individually and
were aware of their students’ disabilities. Even though they verbalized being aware of
their disabled students’ differences they indicated that they did not have time to
differentiate and individualized instruction most of the time. Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer,
M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. (2007) conclude that students receiving instruction
in general education were significantly more likely to be working on activities linked to
the general education standards, although they were doing so without the types of
adaptations that research suggests is critical for making progress. ESL teachers also
stated that they made the required accommodations and accepted that sometimes they did
not have time to account for all the differences.
Monica: “I am always aware of the needs of my students but many times I do not
have time to prepare the class for all these differences in learning styles. The worst cases
for me to handle would be the ones who are blind or partially blind. The students with
specific learning problems work fine with additional time and simple exercises that
contain graphics for understanding. Blind students need a lot of oral input to understand
specially during reading activities.
Norma: “I prepare exercises of different levels to help those that are behind. I
appoint bilingual classmates to those that do not understand what is being learned in
class. I usually assign special projects to assess their understanding. Most of these
students require additional time to complete their activities and fewer items in their
practice exercises. In formal tests, they usually require to be in the resource classroom to
receive the assistance of the Special Education teacher and extra time. I have not had
101
severe cases that are difficult to handle yet. Most of the students have specific learning
problems. Some of them confront difficulties with the class and their academic
achievement is not high but at least they share experiences with their classmates.”
Mr. English: “I have been working with students with special needs for several
years. To be realistic, many students require individual intervention. English is
considered a difficult subject for most of them. Having students with limitations tends to
worsen the situation due to the time limitation. All students deserve an education of
excellence. I do not have the preparation to deal with many limitations, especially
intellectual ones. I provide the lessons to the group in general and most of the time I
cannot work individually with students with doubts or limitations. Most of the students
have limitations in the English class. I have not had uncommon cases; most of them deal
with specific learning problems, and providing the required accommodations, additional
time and differentiating the exercises is sufficient.”
Some other issues that were discussed with the ESL teachers in the individual
interviews were: the benefits that they thought special needs students had with the
inclusion model, the reactions of the regular students with their disabled peers, and the
parents’ expectations with their class. They all affirmed that the inclusion model
provided opportunities for sharing and becoming socially acquainted with others. They
believed that their socialization skills improved. They also added that working in groups
helped them grasp most of the essential aspects covered in class. Concerning the parents’
expectations, the answers varied.
Norma affirmed that “parents expect students to learn the basic skills to
communicate their ideas and to be able to function with the language. They also want
102
them to understand what they read and what they hear. Basically, they expect them to
read, write, speak and understand English. Learning English requires interest and practice
and many of them are only exposed to the language fifty minutes daily. They complain
because after years of study, many of them are unable to function properly with the
second language being learned.”
Mr. English asserted: “Parents expect students to have a conversation in English
and understand the language. They want their kids to be prepared for work. They always
say that bilingual students have more opportunities to be employed.”
Monica said that “they all want their children to be able to communicate
effectively in the language. They want them to be prepared for college, and parents
always say that their son/daughter does not understand the language.”
Two English teachers considered their inclusive practice excellent and one of
them said it was good. They made several suggestions concerning the ways that
inclusive practice could be improve in their classrooms. Bunch, Al-Salah & Pearpoint
(2011) indicated that teachers’ experiences have been that special education resource
teachers and educational assistants are the only ones who can accept the responsibility for
teaching students with disabilities. The interviewed ESL teachers also believe that the
inclusion paradigm in the ELL classroom is developing too slowly and made comments
concerning the future of this model.
Norma stated: “This method being used is outstanding for students with special
needs. All the efforts are guided towards helping them succeed and gain future
independence. I do as much as I can to help these students. I consider my efforts
excellent considering the time I have and the limited support that I receive. I lack the
103
knowledge of the Special Education teacher and she is not required to cover this subject,
and she was not prepared in my area. I do as much as I can with what little knowledge I
have. Sometimes I do not have the time to create exercises to cover my skills. We need
special support from specialists in these disabilities. Classrooms are also lacking
equipment to enlarge print and technological equipment in order to enhance the learning
process.”
Monica replied: “I do not plan with the Special Education teacher. They always
plan with Spanish and Math teachers. They do not have an idea of the English
Curriculum just as I do not have knowledge of theirs. They only come to my classroom if
they need to help their students because their grades in the subject are deficient. I
understand that the government must change the recruiting requirements for the Special
Education and English teachers. Universities have to provide courses to prepare these
professionals.”
Mr. English simply said that “it needs more time to develop.”
B. Category II: Resources and support system.
Resources and support systems available vary in the high schools addressed by
this study. One of the teachers has what she calls “an Educational Disney World.” The
others have “the basics” as they called it. The “Educational Disney World” includes:
Internet connection for students and educators, photocopiers, computers, printers,
television, projectors, books, and materials such as scissors, glue, ink, etc. The other two
said that they have a personal computer, an individual printer that most of the time is out
of ink, old books that have not been changed for several years and copies made in the
office if petitioned with anticipation. They do not have support from others to prepare
104
educational activities to differentiate learning. Braunsteir and Mariano-Lapidus (2014)
pointed out that
educational commodities such as teacher time and attention, tangible resources
and physical space are at a minimum in many schools, thus facilitating the
perception that students with additional educational needs take more than their
share leaving others with less than they need. In the current political and
educational climate, the need for resources has never been greater. (p. 37)
Concerning these matters, the English teachers’ answers were:
Monica answered: “I am happy with the resources that I have in this school. I
have heard from other teachers that they spend money in photocopies and that they buy
markers and even pens. They have one or two fans and do not have good books to refer
to. I believe I have an ‘Educational Disney World’ in my classroom, then. I cannot
complain. I have various computers, Internet access with filters, air conditioner,
dictionaries, photocopiers, pens, scissors, and color pencils, among many other things
that teachers need. Those are tangible things but what I really need to help these students
are courses that prepare me to deal with their disabilities and specialists that prepare
materials for these students. That could be a possible recommendation for the
Department of Education. They should prepare textbooks and materials for the diversity
of students that we have including the gifted ones. I consider myself lucky in comparison
to others.”
Mr. English answered: “I do not have many things that are necessary in a
globalized and technological world. I have some things. I have a personal computer, an
inkjet printer with no ink, some very old books, a board and markers. At the beginning of
105
the school year, I received a small box with tape, a scissor, some rulers, five small
scissors, three bottles of glue and some pens and pencils. To photocopy my exercises and
tests, I have to complete a request sheet in the office and provide these exercises at least
two or three days in advance. The Internet comes and goes. I have fans and some old
dictionaries. I need practically everything. The Special Education teacher is not required
to provide follow up in the skills that I cover only in Math and Spanish. I have been
invited to a few meetings that evaluate some of the students’ educational program. I need
workshops or courses that help me deal with the differentiation requirement that the
Department of Education is asking teachers to carry out. At the beginning, we had to
provide exercises for the gifted but now we are being required to provide differentiation
for the students with disabilities. The question is: In what time?”
Norma also commented: “I have the things that are indispensable. I have a
personal computer, a printer, the board, my desk and the textbooks. I have an LCD
projector but it needs the lamp. The Special Education teacher does not reinforce the
standards covered in some basic subjects as English, Social Studies and Science. She
provides help if the students require it. It is like helping them with their assignments or
asking me to provide additional time so the students can complete a test and things like
that. No one helps me with these students. As with everything else, teachers must assume
responsibility for almost everything.
C. Category III: Teaching-learning processes.
The teaching and learning processes depend on many factors. The teaching
process requires preparation and dedication, and this cannot be carried out without the
adequate amount of time. Besides planning, teachers also have to do some research on
106
the topics covered and prepare various activities considering the diversity existing in their
classrooms. The teaching and learning processes require that three basic elements be
balanced and positive, that is: the teacher, the learner and their learning environment. If
these three elements are encouraged, adaptations are made, and the instruction is well-
designed, then it can be beneficial for the transmission of knowledge. Students with
disabilities require accommodations and adaptations. These will help them move towards
achievement and productivity. Students with learning disabilities (LD) also need
practice. The practice provided in the schools is not enough. Parents must provide
practice in their homes. Many of the remarks made by the ESL professionals are
concerning various subjects such as: the lack of planning time, the absence of support
from most of the parents, Special Education teachers, and even the administration. The
list was extensive; they added excessive workload, the amount of students in their
classrooms, the lack of adequate materials, textbooks and equipment among others. They
indicated that the time they had was dedicated to correcting papers, planning and
informing assistance in the Student Information System (SIE). They have to do a lot of
work at home without being paid. An observation that I made that must be annotated is
that these teachers seem to be in the process of “burning out.” I perceived a
psychological stress and some degree of exhaustion. A mood of dissatisfaction
permeates among these educators. The three teachers mentioned the same things but
added more.
Monica verbalized: “I am supposed to facilitate the learning process. I usually
create a positive climate for learning in my classroom. I do as best as I can to set the
stage. This is a two-way process and if my students are not on the same bus, no matter
107
how hard I try I cannot reach the results I am looking for. Everything depends on
teachers’ and students’ attitudes. Sometimes, external context issues affect their
concentration. There are many things to be done. The Department of Education must
reorganize the Special Education Program and invest their funds adequately so the
teachers and students with special needs receive the technological resources and the
equipment necessary. They must assure the therapies and the follow up of parents and
concerned personnel. Teachers cannot do all the work.”
Norma mentioned the following: “I love my job but every day the situation
worsens. Differentiating instruction, working with students with disabilities and the ones
that are gifted is part of the requirements that the Department of Education is
emphasizing. Teachers are not being aided; they are being evaluated and pointed out.
Accountability and the money being received for these Special Educations kids is all they
care for. I care for their well-being in my classroom. We have hopes for a better future.
Charter schools will only distribute federal funds among interested parties. Teachers will
be the ones affected with lower salaries and larger amount of students… that is definitely
the future with this economic crisis that is being confronted by our educational system.
Let us hope that all of our students, not just the ones with disabilities, receive better
treatment.”
Mr. English replied: “The teaching and learning processes must be adequately
planned by teachers. I plan my classes every day. Sometimes I do better than others but
I try to fulfill my responsibilities. I have asked my coaches and facilitators for help. The
only things that I have received are papers and more papers of how to work with this
108
special population. I do not even have time to correct tests and essays, can you imagine?
I need exercises, activities, workshops, interventions, follow up.”
Many of the students that belong to the Special Education program are at different
skill levels. One of the essential needs of this population is individualized instruction. If
most of the students in lower levels do not receive individual instruction and practice
every day with constant support and follow up; they will definitely struggle to keep up
with their non-disabled peers. The three teachers talked about building prior knowledge,
modeling, guided practice, group practice, independent practice, using visual aids and
graphic organizers in their teaching and learning processes. Individualization is very
difficult to carry out especially in the ELL classroom where a great amount of students
have doubts that need to be clarified.
D. Category IV: Barriers precluding the success of the inclusive process.
Research question five was: What factors complicate or obstruct the inclusive
practice in the ELL classroom? The English teachers were asked to mention any barriers
that are precluding the success of their inclusive practices. The three teachers mentioned
the need for courses that could prepare them to gain knowledge of the existing disabilities
and how to work with the students. The teachers also mentioned the need for support
from the Special Education teachers and the administrators. They mentioned that the
Special Education teachers had to be prepared to deal with all the subjects, not just Math
and Spanish. Concerning this matter, they mentioned that Special Education teachers
have excessive paperwork and this they considered was a barrier that limited their time
for helping their students. Another factor that they believe is complicating the situation is
the lack of parent involvement in the schools. All teachers said that the involvement of
109
parents with the students’ assignments, special works and necessary practice in their
homes was minimum or none. They added that nowadays, the biggest barriers being
corroborated in the newspapers constantly are the lack of funds for transportation,
therapies and special assistants that help the students with special needs. Therapists are
not receiving their payments, and thus, are not providing the services needed. One of the
headlines on March 13, 2016 of the newspaper El Nuevo Día was “Sin transportación un
estudiante de educación especial” [No Transportation for Special Education Student].
Every week, there are different articles in the newspapers related to the Special Education
Program. The ELL teachers mentioned that the Department of Education cannot pretend
that regular teachers assume all the responsibilities for the improvement of the learning
environment that all students, not just disabled students, deserve. Their remarks
concerning the barriers are the following:
Monica responded: “The inclusion of disabled students is really working but
many areas need improvement. The most important one is the preparation of the
teachers. English and Special Education teachers should be given courses. The English
teacher sometimes has to explain the exercises to the Special Education teacher so she
can explain them to some of her students. English teachers should receive an adequate
preparation to deal with diversity. Other courses should prepare them to deal with
different disabilities, methodologies and approaches. The creation of materials to be used
with disabled students that respond to different learning styles should also be included in
the courses offered. The support system cannot be underestimated. Regular ESL
teachers need support from Special Education teachers, parents, administrators and
facilitators. It feels like we are the only ones responsible for their learning. The
110
educational environment of many schools should be improved. In a globalized and
technological world, every school needs wireless connection to the Internet, updated
textbooks, materials, photocopiers, dictionaries, printers, and so on. Visuals are
important so there is a need for computers, electronic boards and projectors. Many
English teachers have what I call the basics.”
Norma commented: “I studied to be a teacher because I love education. Teachers
are being treated so differently these days. There is a lot of uncertainty among us. We are
actually going through the worst economic crisis that I have experienced. There is need
everywhere. The Department of Education is one of the governmental entities that is
suffering shortage of funds. Schools are being restructured. Special Education students
are experiencing these limitations of funds. Inclusion is extraordinary but it is going to
take many years to see changes that make a difference. Some of the barriers that I
consider affect the education of this population are: the preparation of teachers, the
support that we receive from specialists, parents, administrators, facilitators, the need for
materials and equipment, the classroom environment, even the maintenance of schools.
If I take some more time to think, the list is going to be very long.”
Mr. English said: “I have to mention that inclusion of students in the regular
classroom is something constructive and productive. Students deserve quality education
and encouragement. The affirmative thing is that I am always informed of the students
that I will be receiving and the accommodations they require. The problem is that that is
the only intervention; the rest depends exclusively on me. The difficulties that I am
confronting are many. The lack of preparation, time and support are the most adverse. I
am not prepared to deal with disabilities. I do not have knowledge of methods or
111
techniques that could help them learn. I do not have the time needed to differentiate and
no one helps me with the creation of exercises that cover the various levels of the skills.
It seems to me that the Department of Education is not aware that teachers also need
quality time with their families.”
E. Category V: Suggestions to improve the inclusive process in the ELL Classroom.
Research question number four was: What are the suggestions made by all three
categories of participants to improve the inclusion process in the ELL classroom?
Regarding the ways that the Department of Education could improve the inclusive
process, ESL teachers provided several suggestions. The first suggestion was the offering
of professional development related to understanding and working with students with
disabilities. The second suggestion they made was that the Department of Education
should make an evaluation of the requirements that teachers have to meet to receive the
certifications as English teacher and Special Education teacher. They stated that English
teachers must be given courses to work with diversity and disabilities. Special Education
teachers must be prepared to provide follow up on all the subjects not only Spanish and
Math. The third suggestion was that the disabled students should receive the support and
services they need. Other suggestions made were:
1. Time for planning and collaboration from the specialists involved.
2. Reduced class size based on the degree of the disabilities, amount of disabled
students and regular students.
3. Involvement of parents, administrators, facilitators and the corresponding
agencies.
112
4. Workshops related to teaching and learning techniques (peer-to-peer, collaborative
work, think-pair-share, assessment activities, learning theories that are relevant,
etc.).
5. Provision of school funding to employ in the acquisition of textbooks, materials,
exercises and manipulative materials that can be helpful for several disabilities.
6. The development of a program and assigned personnel in the pre-scholar level that
intervenes directly with students that show some learning problems at an early age
(screening and intervention) to avoid academic failures and inadequate registration
in the Special Education Program.
7. Training and coordinated planning between regular and Special Education
teachers.
8. Teacher assistants.
ESL and Special Education teachers must collaborate to select learning strategies
and create environments that work for all students. Related service personnel, including
speech therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists and school psychologists
will be expected to deliver their services in the general education environment rather than
in therapy rooms and will need to incorporate their services into the general education
curriculum and schedule (Ferguson, Ralph, & Katul in Whitbread, 2015). (Hunt et al.
(2003) document the effectiveness of collaboration as a strategy for improving student
outcomes in inclusive settings in two different studies. These researchers documented
that the teaming of teachers, related service providers, and parents in implementing
support plans for students with severe disabilities and typical peers considered
academically at-risk is successful. Teachers must not be left alone with this
113
responsibility in their classrooms. They were neither prepared nor trained to work with
disabilities. It is necessary that these teachers be given courses that prepare them to deal
with students that have special needs. A support system must be created in every school
and interventions made. Accommodations are not enough. The Department of Education
must start by evaluating the requirements to become a regular teacher and a Special
Education teacher. Universities must evaluate their courses and offer courses geared
towards fulfilling these students’ needs. It is not just the regular teacher’s responsibility;
it is the responsibility of a complete staff (administrators, specialists, parents…).
Analysis of semi-structured interviews to Special Education teachers.
The second research question that was established in this investigation was: What are the
perspectives of Special Education teachers of the inclusion process in the ELL classroom?
The first category that arose in this investigation was the general perceptions that these
professionals had concerning the inclusion paradigm and its effectiveness at the high
school level. The answers that they provided concerning this category are presented in this
section.
The pseudonyms used to identify the Special Education teachers were: Sandra,
Elizabeth and Clara. The three participants were asked to provide a definition for the
concepts of integration, inclusion and segregation. Similar to ESL teachers, they defined
segregation as the separation of disabled students from their non-disabled peers. They
indicated that it was total separation including school activities. These participants
provided different definitions to the concepts integration and inclusion. These definitions
and their general perspectives concerning the inclusion paradigm are presented in the
following section.
114
F. Category I: General perceptions and effectiveness of the inclusion process:
The Special Education teachers provided different meanings for the concepts
inclusion and integration. They all provided the same meaning for the concept
segregation. The most important concepts, which are inclusion and integration, tend to
be confusing for these educators. The teachers were asked to define the concepts
segregation, integration and inclusion and their answers were:
Sandra said: “Segregation is setting students that are disabled apart from their
non-disabled peers. Integration refers to the efforts, coordination and planning carried
out to have a peaceful coexistence among the sectors that comprise a group. Inclusion
refers to the interaction between the disabled students and regular students with equal
conditions as their non-disabled peers. They enjoy the same rights and opportunities as
the regular students.”
Elizabeth defined the concepts as follows: “Segregation refers to separating the
students; integration is when the disabled student becomes part of a group and shares
daily experiences with their non-disabled classmates. Inclusion is the integration of
disabled students in the mainstream in all the subjects and in all aspects.”
Clara offered the following definitions: “Inclusion means putting together,
integrating refers to introducing disabled students to the mainstream and segregation
means to separate them from the mainstream.”
The Special Education teachers provided the same meaning for the concept
segregation. The three participants said that segregation meant to separate disabled
students from regular students. They provided different meanings for the concepts of
115
integration and inclusion. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004)
provides the definition for the concept inclusion, which refers to the participation of
students in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Students with disabilities are placed
together with their nondisabled peers in academic, extracurricular, and all other school
activities. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity
of the disability is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary
aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily (IDEA, 2004). The Alliance for
Inclusive Education (2015) defines integration as disabled people of all ages and/or those
learners with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being placed in mainstream education
settings with some adaptations and resources, but on condition that the disabled person
and/or the learner with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels can fit in with pre-existing
structures, attitudes and an unaltered environment. Segregation is defined as disabled
people of all ages and/or those learners with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being
placed in any form of segregated education setting. This tends to force disabled people to
lead a separate life. (ALLFIE, 2015) According to these provided definitions, there is a
need for clarification of the concepts inclusion and integration among the Special
Education and English teachers. Another concept that must be considered is exclusion.
Segregation and exclusion do not have the same meaning. Segregation refers to the
provision of education in separate classrooms or in special schools for students that are
disabled and exclusion means that the student does not receive instruction in any school.
It means to be totally excluded from any form of education.
116
Special Education teachers believe that the inclusion process is not being effective
and that it needs to be improved in many areas. The teachers stated emphatically that
many parents are failing to help their children overcome the difficulties that they have.
According to these professionals most parents believe that their children’s success is the
responsibility of the school and the Special Education Program. Parents fail to provide
continuity to the job that is done in classrooms. The teachers state that if parents are not
active in their children’s daily improvement and dedicate valuable time to this matter;
their children will take an immense amount of time to be able to function adequately in
jobs and become more independent. Concerning the process of inclusion, they stated that
general education teachers do not receive the preparation needed to deal with the
amalgam of existent incapacities. Teaching students with disabilities requires knowledge
of the disability of the students and of the methodology to be followed in order to be
effective in their teaching process. General education teachers are not required to study
these issues and they are not provided with workshops or courses that can help them.
According to these special educators many of the students with disabilities require
modifications of the curriculum, adaptations, materials, manipulative materials,
technological devices and differentiation in approaches. They indicated that each
disabled student is different and each case is analyzed separately. They must be treated
individually and with different approaches because the severity or degree of their
disability and individual execution varies. The amount of students in a language learning
classroom does not allow regular classroom teachers to deal with all these different
needs. They also affirmed that learning English is difficult for students with disabilities
because they have their disability in addition to the difficulty of learning a language that
117
is not their vernacular or first language. They pointed out that mainstream or regular
students have difficulty learning a second language and it is worse for students with
disabilities. They indicated that their most difficult experiences have been with students
with autism, blindness, mental and behavior disorders.
Clara mentioned: “The disabilities I considered challenging were various. The
first one is the Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) because students with this disorder
show negative and defiant behaviors. The others that I have considered difficult are
autism, mental retardation, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
because the students with ADHD are restless, hyperactive, impulsive and inattentive.”
Elizabeth said: “The worst case I have dealt with came in this year. The student
has not been able to come to school because he has frequent convulsions, passed through
a bullying experience, and has generalized mental anxiety disorder, among other
disabilities that prevent him from coming to school. That case is being evaluated in court
this month.”
Sandra replied: “The most difficult disabilities to handle are blindness and
emotional disturbances.”
Finally, the three participants mentioned that the island’s actual economic crisis is
deeply affecting the services that students with disabilities receive because the lack of
payment to the professionals providing these essential services. Many of them are not
receiving their therapies and some are not getting transportation services.
Special Education teachers affirmed that in Puerto Rico they are only required to
reinforce and provide follow up to the subjects of Spanish and Math and Reading
Comprehension. Subjects such as Science, English and Social Studies are not reinforced.
118
According to these teachers, the individualized education plan (IEP), special education
term outlined by IDEA to define the written document that states the disabled child’s
goals, objectives and services for students receiving special education only include Math,
Spanish, and Reading Comprehension. They mentioned having various responsibilities
such as: designing and delivering lessons geared towards the individual needs and
capabilities of the students, collaborating with Math and Spanish classroom teachers,
collaborating with the specialists that provide services to the students, setting learning
goals for each student, assessing their progress, and recording their evaluations. They
work the transition process (from school to school), keep parents updated on the progress
of their students and notify them of their rights and counseling they might need.
These educators are constantly receiving complaints from parents that their
children do not understand the English class and that their grades are deficient in this
subject. The teachers indicated that the inclusion paradigm is not being completely
effective in this area of study. Students with disabilities have to set all their effort on
trying to grasp what is being taught in the class.
Elizabeth said: “I am not required to provide follow up in this subject (English).
We follow what is indicated in the IEP of the student. Special Education teachers are not
prepared to teach English skills. Our preparation did not include a training in this field of
study. I do not meet with the English teacher and I am not required to do so.”
Clara replied: “I am not expected to cover the English subject. The only
intervention that I have with the English teachers is giving them a list of the students that
belong to the Special Education Program and the accommodations that they are supposed
to provide for each.”
119
Sandra told me: “The only subjects I reinforce are Math and Spanish. I plan with
these teachers only and provide follow up.”
On determining the effectiveness of the program, the teachers indicated that the
inclusive practices were not being as successful as they would prefer due to the lack of
planning time, the regular teachers’ need for adequate preparation and well-equipped
classrooms. The services provided to the disabled student are not suiting all of their
requirements. All the teachers indicated that they did not work with the English skills
and were not prepared to do so. They indicated that sometimes they provided help with
Science and Social Studies but English was not a subject they reinforced. In addition,
they are not required to work with it.
Sandra stated: “When regular teachers are aware of our students’ needs and gain
knowledge of the program they help students with special needs complete their exercises.
They also let us know if the student has to hand in assignments or have a test. In some
way, they are more cooperative and defend them. This is due to their understanding that
students deserve equal opportunities to succeed in the school environment.”
Clara indicated that “special education students require different methodologies to
understand what is being taught. Many of them require visuals, some repetition and most
of them additional time and simple directions. They also require follow up or an
individual approach that cannot be provided on a daily basis by regular teachers. In the
English class, they need more help than in other subjects because they have the additional
limitation of not knowing the language.”
Elizabeth said: “Regular teachers in this school have groups of twenty-five
students or more as required by the Department of Education. Students with disabilities
120
receive the same approach that regular students have, except that they are provided with
the accommodations stipulated in their individualized educational program. Many
regular teachers have the same complaint, the lack of time to plan for differentiated
learning activities and prepare material to support differences. Most of them used the
cooperative learning strategy or peer-to-peer tutoring to help those in need.”
A study conducted by Robertson, Chamberlain, and Kasari (2003) in Whitbread
(2015) asserts that when teachers have positive perceptions of their relationship with
students with disabilities, the students’ behavior problems diminished and became more
involved socially with peers. As Sandra mentioned, it is necessary for teachers to be
aware of the necessities that these special students have in order to understand that they
are part of the support these students need to be successful in the school environment.
These participants also mentioned the requirement of familiarizing the regular teachers
with the Special Education program and ways that they can improve their inclusive
practices.
G. Category II: Resources and support system:
The last research question was: What factors complicate or obstruct the inclusive
practice in the ELL classroom? During the individual interviews carried out, all three
participants indicated that one of the factors that complicated the inclusive practice was
the lack of resources and support system. The students did not have access to computers
to complete their assignments. This is what they replied:
Sandra: “I only have one computer to complete all the paperwork required by the
Department of Education. My students need computers because most of them do not
have one at home. They do most of the research in my classroom with my help. Most of
121
my students belong to families that are not economically well. Printers are also needed. I
work with students individually and sometimes I cannot help them all and they do not
hand in their assignments. The only place that they can visit is the municipal library and
many of them do not have cars to go there after school to complete their school projects
and assignments. Parents expect Special Education teachers to handle their children with
their academic needs and if they fail a class, I think they believe that I am not doing my
job properly.”
Elizabeth said: “I usually have groups that require materials, computers, folders
for projects, scissors, glue, pictures, and other things. I only have a personal computer in
the classroom. I prepare adequate exercises for additional practice of the Math and
Spanish skills and complete documents and paperwork required by the Department of
Education. They often need to look for information on the Internet and I cannot help
them. They complain that the school’s library is closed most of the time and that they do
not have a computer or Internet at their homes. Students sometimes have to use their
parents’ cellphone to do their homework and they have to copy everything because they
do not have printers. The Internet connection in the school is not yet available for
students. We also have difficulty because the Internet service is down most of the time.
Support and materials play an essential part in improving the learning environment for
these kids that need graphics, larger fonts and visuals to understand the skills.
Administrators have to consider these things.”
Clara stated: “I have working tables. My students share their materials. In our
school, technological resources are often available for regular classrooms. I only have
one computer, a printer and basic material. I need a projector, additional computers,
122
printers and ink for the printers. Most of the time, these students do not even have
pencils. A photocopier in my classroom would be excellent or probably a dream come
true.”
“Academic benefits for general education students include having additional
special education staff in the development of academic adaptations for all students who
need them.” (Hines, 2001, p. 3) The Special Education teachers should be provided with
technological devices and equipment needed to improve their interventions with students
with disabilities. The use of graphic organizers, study guides, and computer
accommodations resulted in significantly improved performances on tests and quizzes for
students with and without disabilities. (Horton, Lovitt, & Berglund, 1990) Resources and
external support is indispensable for the attainment of the results desired.
H. Category III: Teaching-learning process:
The teaching-learning process in these special classrooms is different because
they work with small amount of students when compared with regular teachers. The
participants were asked how they considered their teaching practice and what techniques
they used to help the students they tended to. They were also asked what teaching
practices they considered were effective for their students. Their remarks were the
following:
Clara commented: “Every student is unique. I work with them individually most
of the time. My teaching practice is excellent. I place all my effort on my job.
Sometimes I use the students that understand to provide tutoring. They are more
receptive to their peers. I prepare few additional exercises to reinforce the Math and
Spanish skills. I use graphics and big fonts. The amount of exercises is adequate, not
123
excessive. Their attention span is limited. I do not provide exercises for the English class
and I do not intervene with that subject unless the student is very needy or the parent
requires my help.”
Sandra explained: “I work with my students separately. They are the ones that
usually point out their needs. I have my plans because I visit the Spanish and the Math
teachers to know what skills they are covering to make sure that my students understand.
I really consider my job satisfying and I am good at it. I do not know what is going on in
the English classroom because I do not plan with the teacher. I only have time to prepare
the exercises for the subjects specified in their individual educational program and it
takes various days for some of my students to simply understand one skill. It takes time
to help them overcome their limitations. I am aware of the difficulties that English
teachers must be confronting. English is a difficult subject for disabled as well as regular
students.”
Elizabeth said: “I love my job and I carry out all my responsibilities. I treat these
students as if they were my own children. We enjoy being together during that hour. I
consider their individual needs. I have small groups of students, unlike regular teachers.
My job is not easy. I am a counselor, a tutor, a mediator, and similar to their parents. I
help each one with their assignments. I try to do the best I can with what I have but
materials are very limited. I need more computers and printers with ink to help them
with their assignments. They come to my classroom asking for pencils, erasers, pictures,
newspapers and all sort of things they need for their regular classes. I provide them the
extended time they require for their tests. I use group work, peer-to-peer interaction,
graphic organizers, pictures, sensory images, manipulative materials, and whatever I have
124
available that helps me transmit ideas to them. They are very artistic. They love
drawing, listening to music, and painting. At the high school level, they let you know
what they need. I have some students that do not even copy their material and I have to
check other students’ notebooks to help them complete the material covered by the
regular teachers.”
Researchers and advocates of inclusion have placed a considerable amount of
focus on meeting students’ needs through individualized instruction and adaptations of
the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. (Spooner, Baker, Harris,
Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Browder, 2007) The three participants mentioned several teaching
techniques that were effective for their students. Some of the teaching strategies were
collaborative grouping, peer-to-peer interaction, the use of graphic organizers, extended
time, few amount of exercises, integration of the arts, and individualized instruction
among others. The three participants mentioned that they were like their parents to these
students and that they did what they could, considering the limitations they have. They
also mentioned that they were more attentive to their peers. In various studies concerning
students with mild disabilities, the use of peer mediated strategies resulted in improved
academic outcomes for all students including those considered at-risk academically
(Sailor, 2002). Regular teachers that value inclusion usually carry out essential practices
such as ongoing varied assessment practices; apply different instructional approaches,
hands on learning, different levels instruction, and individualization when possible.
125
I. Category IV. Barriers precluding the success of the inclusive process:
Research question five was: What factors complicate or obstruct the inclusive
practice in the ELL classroom? One of the categories that covered this question was the
barriers that obstruct the inclusive process. Special Education teachers were very
expressive listing what they considered as a barrier to the progression of the inclusion
paradigm. All participants indicated not being aware of the barriers confronted in the
ELL classroom because their presence in the English language learning classroom was
minimal. Even so, they made several assertions concerning the barriers that most
teachers constantly mentioned in their professional meetings.
Sandra said: “I cannot mention barriers encountered in the English classroom but I
can mention what most teachers say. The first barrier they assert is the lack of support
from facilitators and administrators. They mentioned that the amount of students with
special needs in their groups is too high, that they do not have time to differentiate
instruction. Another problem they confront is the lack of preparation. They say that they
were not prepared to deal with disabilities. They say that Special Education teachers are
the ones responsible because they were prepared for that.”
Clara reacted by saying: “One of the biggest barriers that has been mentioned for
years is the need for teacher preparation to work with disabilities and diversity. The
funds must be assigned for this purpose. Most teachers complain that they have to deal
with every policy that comes to existence without the proper preparation. Their
complaints are related to support, lack of materials and the need for the parents’
involvement in their students’ education.”
126
Elizabeth mentioned the following: “In this technological era, working without
technology is a major concern. The barriers are various. The most important one is the
absence of genuine interest in providing a quality education to these special students.
Every day you see in the newspaper that the government is not paying for needed
services. In addition, the Department of Education has not evaluated the need for
changing the certification requirements of the teachers currently undergoing formation.
Regular classroom teachers should be prepared to understand the different disabilities and
the methodologies necessary to teach them. The amount of students that are part of the
Special Education Program is increasing and it is impossible for regular teachers to
positively impact students with disabilities if they have a classroom full of students,
especially when dealing with the learning of a foreign language.”
The ESL teachers and the Special Education teachers identified practically the
same barriers, to wit:
The need for support (teacher assistants) and the provision of services
(transportation, therapies, equipment, technological devices…).
No recent evaluation of the requirements for certifying regular and Special
Education teachers.
No time for planning, creating and evaluating students’ learning.
Inadequate Class size (25 students or more).
No offers of courses and professional development for regular and Special
Education Teachers.
No workshops related to effective teaching methodologies, techniques and current
theories (cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and modification of curriculums).
127
Minimum or no collaboration between parents, teachers, specialists,
administration, and outside agencies that provide services.
No funds to buy textbooks, materials and technological devices needed for LD
students.
Adequate learning environment (rooms and maintenance of schools).
J. Category V. Suggestions to improve the inclusive process in the ELL Classroom:
Research question four was: What are the suggestions made by all three categories
of participants to improve the inclusion process in the ELL classroom? The Special
Education teachers presented several suggestions to improve the inclusion process in
general, not just in the ELL classrooms. Their answers to this question were:
Sandra: “Inclusion is law. I suggest they prepare all teachers to deal with diversity
and different ways of adapting the curriculum. Assistive technology is also a law. Schools
must be provided with what they need in order to offer a quality education. Students with
disabilities have to receive the services they need. Therapies, accommodations,
adaptations among many things that they require have to be provided. It is sad but
inclusion is not being worked as it should.”
Elizabeth made several suggestions. “The IDEA act requires that students be
placed in the least restrictive environment. Students with disabilities require
accommodations and adaptations. Teachers must be given courses and workshops to learn
about the necessities of learning disabled (LD) students. As I mentioned previously,
teachers have too much work and insufficient time to complete it. They need assistants to
correct tests and prepare exercises. When teachers have different grades it is worse to
make plans for various grade levels and different accommodations and adaptations
128
depending on the disabilities that they deal with. The classrooms have to be decorated and
updated with the audio visual equipment needed. Internet access must be for everyone in
the school and it has to work uninterruptedly. The Department of Education has to make a
complete organization of the program to avoid the fines they are currently paying. This
list can go on.”
Clara stated: “I understand that the most important suggestion I can make is that all
teachers should receive courses and workshops to learn to deal with diversity and
disabilities. Everyone knows what has been needed for years. It is the responsibility of the
Department of Education and the assigned administrators to make things work. The funds
and support have to be allocated properly.”
Since the 1990s, all types of comments have been made about inclusion. There are
groups that are in favor and others that are against. The concerns are many. In Puerto
Rico, the daily televised and written news are a constant reminder of the non-compliance
of the services and support these special students need. Teachers have been making the
same suggestions for years to their supervisors and facilitators. There is a need for
preparation, for equipment and textbooks. The classrooms are not prepared to enhance the
learning experiences of students. Teachers spend money photocopying exercises, tests
and assessment activities. Not all teachers are lucky to have “an educational Disney
World.” Throughout the interviews their non-verbal gestures were of dissatisfaction with
the actual situation. They reacted like they were being required to carry out many tasks
without providing the time and the support needed to be effective and functional. These
suggestions will be considered again in the last chapter of this study.
129
Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews to Parents of Students with
Disabilities. Research question number three was: What are the perspectives of the
parents on the inclusion process in the ELL classroom? This section answers said
question. The pseudonyms used to identify these participants were: Pedro, Eloísa and
Nilda. Parent involvement is a key factor of high-performing schools. Educating this new
generation is a shared responsibility. When parents and teachers work together, students
are more successful. Parents of students with special needs play an important role in their
development. They are expected to have an outstanding participation in their children’s
learning process. Parents that have students that belong to the Special Education program
must be actively involved in their education to help their child adapt and easily integrate in
the mainstream. Their personal development is associated with the opportunities that
family, society and school offer. The parents that participated in the study registered their
children in the Special Education Program since they were in primary grades. These
parents inform that they have been well oriented about their rights and their children’s
rights by the Special Education program teachers. Two of them also stated that they have
participated in several workshops provided by the Disabled Students’ Parents Association
(APNI, for its Spanish acronym) in Puerto Rico. Some of the workshops they attended
were related to Inclusion, Integration, Assessment, Transition Process, and Studying
Methods among others.
K. Category I: General perceptions and effectiveness of the inclusion paradigm:
The three parents (Eloísa, Nilda and Pedro) that were interviewed were asked to
provide a definition for the concepts inclusion, integration and segregation. The three
parents defined the concept segregation as having their children separated from the
130
regular students. Eloísa and Nilda provided different definitions for the concepts
inclusion and integration. Pedro did not know how to define the concepts. Eloísa and
Nilda defined the concepts as follows:
Eloísa said: “Segregation is to accommodate disabled students in separate rooms.
Integrate is to incorporate them into regular classrooms with non-disabled students and
inclusion is to eliminate everything that has to do with segregation and the students with
needs are treated the same as the regular ones.”
Nilda provided the following definitions: “Segregation is not a healthy alternative
for students like my daughter, who has a mild disability. This method of segregation
should be used for students with severe disabilities. In my daughter’s case I understand
that inclusion is more favorable and she is integrated with the regular students in all
classes and all school activities. Integration occurs simultaneously with inclusion and is
an adequate method for students with specific learning problems and disabilities that are
not severe.”
Eloísa and Nilda provided definitions to the concepts integration and inclusion.
Pedro did not know the meanings of the concepts of integration and inclusion. The two
participants that provided definitions took workshops at APNI. Parents have to be
involved in their children’s educational process. In 2003, teachers were surveyed
concerning the parents’ involvement in their children’s education. Two-thirds of
surveyed teachers (Public Agenda, 2003) believed that their students would perform
better in school if their parents were more involved in their child’s education, while 72%
of parents say children of uninvolved parents sometimes “fall through the cracks” in
schools. (Johnson & Duffett, 2003, as cited in Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011) Parents’
131
involvement and follow up of their children in school helps them improve academically.
Parents were asked to react to their participation in the school and how their children
were doing in the ELL classroom. They were also asked to react to how their children
felt in the English classroom and if the teachers carried out the accommodations and
made the curriculum adjustments necessary.
Pedro said: “My daughter is very happy at the school and she has very good
grades in the English class. Teachers need to be prepared to deal with individual
differences among students. My daughter does not need curriculum adjustments. She
works alone and asks the teacher to explain if she has doubts. In this class everything
works as it should. I go to school when I am required to do so by the teachers.”
Nilda stated: “All teachers are prepared to deal with students with disabilities.
They take courses in the university that prepares them. My daughter has specific learning
problems but she is doing well in the English class. She has to look for words in the
dictionary but she gets along well. The teacher is always available and if she needs help;
the teachers provides it. Her accommodations are made in all of the classes. I visit school
at least once a month.”
Eloísa said “I only had problems with the English teachers in two occasions: ninth
and eleventh grade. My son had to repeat the eleventh grade. It was a lack of
communication between student, teacher and parent. There was no communication. My
son does not like the English class. All the time he is saying that he does not understand.
His grades are not good in this class. The teacher complies with the accommodations
required and she makes many adjustments. This class is very difficult for him. Teachers
132
must be oriented about the different disabilities of the students they attend. I visit the
school at least twice a month.
The answers provided in this section indicate that there are differences in opinions
among parents. One parent believes that teachers are prepared in the universities to deal
with diversity and disabilities, the others disagree. One of the parents (Eloísa) had
communication problems in two different years. During one of those years her son failed
the English class. This suggests the importance of parent-teacher communication when
working with students with disabilities. It also indicates that parent involvement is
required. They must visit the school at least twice a month. In regard to the English class,
two of the parents do not have concerns with the English subject and they stated that the
accommodations were being made. The previous interviews made to the teachers
revealed that they are aware of the accommodations they must make and always comply
with that requirement.
L. Category II. Resources and support system:
The participants were asked if they felt that the resources and support system in
the school were available. They agreed that resources were limited. The three
participants had different reactions, to wit:
Pedro: “My daughter only complains about needing a computer, Internet access
and a printer to do her homework. The only place where she can do her homework is in
the public library. In the school she does not have these facilities. I think the school
should have a place for students to do research and complete their projects and
homework. I cannot help her sometimes because I do not understand. Not all parents
133
have studies. They should also have a room for them to play and hang out. She receives
the therapies she needs but not on time.”
Nilda: “My daughter always receives the help she needs. I visit the school
frequently. Teachers help her a lot. The school should improve the facilities to have a
place where the students can do their homework, as the school library is closed most of
the time. Most of her teachers have technological devices but some do not know how to
use them.”
Eloísa replied: “In my house we do not have a computer. I cannot afford one. I
expect the school to have computers, printers, books, dictionaries and other resources for
my son to complete all his assignments. My son works and writes very slowly. He is not
receiving help during his free time to complete his homework. Schools should have
personnel aside from the teachers to help students with disabilities carry out their
assignments. Some of the people in the schools should be assigned to help Special
Education students carry out their homework.”
The parents were concerned that their children were not provided with a place to
complete their assignments or to look for information they need at school. They also
thought that some school personnel should be assigned to help them complete their
assignments. Additional support for these students is what they are requesting. Hunt and
colleagues (2003) document the effectiveness of collaboration as a strategy for improving
student outcomes in inclusive settings in two different studies. These researchers
documented that the teaming of teachers, related service providers, and parents in
implementing support plans for students with severe disabilities and typical peers
considered academically at-risk is successful. The preparation of teachers is another
134
aspect that was mentioned throughout all the interviews. The parents and the teachers did
not mention the support given by the administration. They only verbalized that they were
appointed for meetings concerning the individual educational program and at the end of
the year for final results of academic progress.
M. Category III. Teaching-learning process:
Every child is different. Parents and teachers should know the unique talents,
abilities, skills, interests and special needs of these children. The parents were asked
about the teaching-learning process of their children and to mention ways they learned
better. Their replies were similar.
Nilda answered: “My daughter learns with pictures and with repetition. She also
loves the arts; she likes drawing and painting. I am not aware of how the teacher imparts
the class.”
Pedro explained: “My daughter loves to sing. She sings in church. She likes
music and drawing. The teachers use graphic organizers. The teachers also give her
assignments and she has to look for information a lot. My daughter has to read many
stories. We try to help her at home.”
Eloísa said: “My son requires additional time to complete his assignments. He
likes to touch and see things. He needs many sensory images. His attention span is very
limited. He does not copy all the information he needs to study. He copies slowly.
Teachers have to repeat things and verify that he is doing his work. This has to be done
almost every day.”
Teachers have to find teaching methodologies that suit the majority of the
students. Technology plays an essential part. Students with disabilities require different
135
accommodations and adaptations. Most of them require repetition, visuals, sounds,
additional time to complete tasks, simple instructions among many others depending on
their disability. The National Center for Education Statistics (2010) states that nearly
every metric used to measure post-high school success (employment, independent living,
and post-high school education/training) shows the majority of students with disabilities
do not succeed. This statistic has to change. Interventions must be made to improve the
opportunities of success of the students with disabilities.
N. Category IV. Barriers precluding the success of the inclusive process:
Research question number five was: What factors complicate or obstruct the
inclusive practice in the ELL classroom? The parents were asked to mention any factors
or barriers that they considered were precluding the progress of the inclusion paradigm.
They all mentioned the lack of payment to the specialists that provide services. At this
specific time, Puerto Rico is going through a fiscal crisis that is affecting many
government agencies. The Department of Education is one of the most affected. Two
parents also mentioned the need for additional assistants in the classroom that can help
the teachers so they may individualize instruction. The three participants mentioned the
need for textbooks that considered their children’s disabilities, as well as the lack of
support outside the classroom to help the students with disabilities do their homework.
The three participants also mentioned the need for facilities with computers, Internet
access and printers for families that do not have economic resources like them.
Eloísa stated: “I cannot help my son because I do not have a computer or Internet
access. I take him to the public library but most of the time it is crowded. They do not
have ink to print the assignments. Schools must have some room available so these
136
students can be helped with their work. The school needs new books. Teachers need
assistants or smaller groups of students to work with the students individually. Teachers
also need to be prepared by the Department of Education.”
Pedro remarked: “My daughter does her homework at school. Sometimes she
cannot complete her work and I have to take her to the public library. I am the only one
working and I do not have money to pay for Internet service. The school needs
additional teachers and a resource room for the students to do their homework. This
school also needs to prepare the teachers to work with disabilities and understand these
students.”
Nilda commented: “Direct attention is so necessary for my daughter and teachers
have so many students that they cannot individualize. This school has technological
resources. They also need help with their exercises and assignments. English is a
difficult subject and teachers must verify that the students are doing their practice
exercises well and that they understand. Teachers have to receive more preparation
concerning the existing disabilities.”
The use of graphic organizers, study guides, and computer accommodations
resulted in significantly improved performances on tests and quizzes for students with
and without disabilities. (Horton, Lovitt, & Berglund, 1990) Students with learning
disabilities need to have access to information. The schools must provide a place where
they can assist to do research and find information about the different subjects they are
studying. Peer tutoring resulted in significant increases in spelling, social studies and
other academic areas for students with and without disabilities. (Maheady et al, 1988)
(Pomerantz et al, 1994) Peers can be assigned to tutor LD students. The parents
137
interviewed indicated that their economic status made it impossible for them to have
computers, printers and other technological devices in their houses. They also stated that
they did not have sufficient time to provide the help their children needed to complete
their homework. Considering these influential factors, schools must be prepared to help
LD students with their individual situations by having personnel and a place assigned for
this purpose. The need for updated books, materials and resources has been identified by
all the participants as a factor that needs to be prioritized.
O. Category V. Suggestions to improve the inclusive process in the ELL Classroom:
Research question number four was: What are the suggestions made by all three
categories of participants to improve the inclusion process in the ELL classroom? The
three parents made it clear that human resources are needed to work with disabled
students effectively. They remarked that teachers needed additional time for planning
and preparing exercises to differentiate instruction. The three parents also mentioned the
need for a resource room for completing assignments with computers and Internet
accessible to their children. They stated that teachers needed to be prepared to work with
different disabilities. Two of them mentioned that the school had technological
resources. According to these participants some teachers had to be prepared to work with
technology. Their suggestions were:
Pedro: “I would make several suggestions. Teachers should be prepared and
aided with these students. Working with students with disabilities is not easy. They
should assign someone to tutor or help these students to complete their homework. They
should buy the materials that the teachers need to work with them. Most of the families
138
here are poor and have no Internet or computers in the house. They should also prepare
places for students to study and do their assignments.”
Eloísa: “My son requires individual support to understand a language that he does
not understand or like. He requires additional time to complete exercises and to copy on
his notebook. The school’s library should be available for the students all the time.
Teachers have to be prepared to work with the students that belong to the Special
Education Program. More teachers should be assigned to work in the classrooms so that
they can handle cases that require individualization. The school should have a computer
room equipped with Internet service and tutors for the different subjects. The
Department of Education has to pay on time for services provided. The funds have to be
used adequately.”
Nilda: “I would suggest preparing the teachers and giving them more help. The
Department of Education should provide technology for teachers and for students.
Teachers have to be given courses to deal with the use of technology. Some of them have
technological devices in their rooms but do not use them. The school’s facilities should
be more modern and students should have a place to do assignments and to meet. The
school’s library must be open for them at all times. Special Education teachers should
help all regular teachers preparing the activities that are suggested for the disabled
students based on their limitations.”
Parents were very concerned with the needs of their children. The Special
Education Program is considered a service and not an individual class. Teachers must
offer their services in all the academic subjects. If the school wants to be considered
totally inclusive; they must provide these services in the regular academic classrooms
139
including the ELL classroom instead of removing them at certain hours. These
interventions can be made as additional help or tutoring by peers at free hours. Two of
the three parents are receiving workshops and conferences that are offered by an external
agency (APNI). They indicated that the school did not offer workshops and that they did
not receive much support from the administration of the school. Even though, they
indicated that they were pleased with the way their children were treated by the ESL
teachers. Only one of them (Eloísa) stated that in two particular years she confronted
communication problems and that her son failed the English class in the eleventh grade.
The full inclusion approach is constantly debated by opponents, and in Puerto
Rico it will require changes that might not be welcomed by regular and Special Education
teachers. It must be considered that not all teachers like to team-teach and do not like to
be interrupted. Most of the parents stated that the teachers had to be prepared and could
not do everything on their own without the much needed support. Some of them
suggested that regular teachers be assigned assistants. They also stated that Special
Education teachers should be responsible for preparing the differentiated activities and
exercises that the students with special needs required according to their particular
disabilities. Students with mild or moderate disabilities, as well as disabilities that do not
affect academic achievement must be provided with all the services they require in order
to achieve their educational goals. Students with severe disabilities must be treated
individually to help them gain academic success.
140
Aesthetic Interpretations of the Inclusion Paradigm. The teachers and parents
were asked to provide any drawing or personal narrative concerning the topic of
inclusion. Only two participants provided an artistic interpretation.
Figure 1. Teacher’s Artistic Interpretation of Inclusion
This interpretation of the inclusion paradigm made by Elizabeth, one of the
Special Education teachers, demonstrates that she loves her job. She uses a heart to
symbolize her love for her profession and the acceptance of inclusion in the classrooms.
She also makes precise selection of her five major concerns: resources, equality,
preparation, attitudes and accommodations. As mentioned previously, teachers are
aware of the imminent need for teachers to receive preparation to deal with disabilities.
They like what they do but they feel that teachers lack preparation. English teachers
need to be prepared with diversity and disabilities and Special Education teachers need
preparation in all the academic subjects. They believe that their students need to know
English. The aspect of treating disabled students as equal to the regular students is also
one of her concerns as demonstrated in the graphic. Teachers must also make the
Inclusión
Prep
ara
ció
n
141
accommodations required by the individualized educational program made to each
student. Finally, all technological and professional resources must be available.
Nilda, one of the parents, made an acrostic poem representing what inclusion
meant to her.
Integrar a los chicos con sus pares
No poner barreras a su desarrollo
Cooperar todos para lograr las metas
La enseñanza diferenciada
Unir esfuerzos y dedicación
Simplificar las tareas
Individualizar la enseñanza
Ofrecer nuestro máximo esfuerzo
No ser negativo
Figure 2: Parents’ Interpretation of Inclusion (Acrostic Poem)
Her work presents her major concerns and the efforts that she considers must be
carried out for the inclusive practice to be successful. She encompasses many of the
ideas covered in this study. One of the most valuable ideas that she conveys is related to
the attitudes required for this method to be successful. T eacher’s attitudes have been
identified as one of several elements that are critical for promoting the success of students
with disabilities in general education settings. (Prater, 2003) She said that negativity is
not welcome. She also added that inclusion requires the cooperation of all the concerning
Inclusión
142
parties: teachers, parents, administrators, agencies and all professionals that provide
services. Some of her lines express her way of seeing the teaching process as one that
offers differentiation, individualization and simplification of instructions. Finally, she
expresses through her acrostic the need to join forces and make our best effort for the
inclusive process to succeed.
Overview
This chapter presented the findings of the semi-structured interviews to ESL
teachers, Special Education teachers and parents. It also included an interpretation of
the art created by one Special Education teacher (Elizabeth) and one mother (Nilda).
Aesthetics expressions also carry deep meaning and are valuable for understanding
perspectives. This phenomenological study presented their perspectives concerning the
inclusion paradigm in the particular high schools settings they are related to and the
interpretation of their responses. The interviews covered the teachers and parents’
demographic data, their perspectives concerning the following categories identified:
a. General perceptions and effectiveness of the inclusion process
b. Resources and support system
c. Teaching-learning processes
d. Barriers precluding the success of the inclusive process
e. Suggestions to improve the inclusive process in the ELL Classroom
The final chapter will provide the conclusions and the recommendations made
based on the findings. It will also provide suggestions for future research in this area of
study.
143
Chapter Five
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
The purpose of this research was to investigate the perspectives of teachers and
parents concerning the inclusion of special education students in the regular English
language learning classroom. This phenomenological study described what is really
happening in these school settings in the ELL classrooms without interrupting or
intervening with the existing situation; a look of what is. It intended to be a vivid
narration of the teachers’ and parents’ experiences and their daily interventions and
practices with special education students. The main focus was to gather feedback of their
needs and bring together information of what is really going on in ELL classrooms. The
objective was to improve the Special Education Program in Puerto Rico’s school system.
It demonstrated how these educators and parents feel and express themselves about the
phenomenon of inclusion. The Special Education Program is currently on the spotlight.
Newspapers bring news everyday concerning this topic. Inclusion has been a topic of
research for many years and it has followers as well as opponents. This investigation is
not conclusive and cannot be generalized. Max Van Manen (1997) indicates that
“phenomenology does not produce generalizable data and the samples are generally very
small, it cannot be said that the experiences are typical.” (p. 2). Many of the exposed
ideas are similar to ideas revealed in other related investigations.
This study sought to explore through research questions and aesthetic expressions
(poems, drawings or narratives) the phenomenon of inclusion as it is experienced by
teachers and parents in selected high schools in an eastern school district of Puerto Rico.
According to Johnson (2001),
144
[…] non-experimental studies fall under the category of being descriptive when
the primary focus for the research is to describe some phenomenon or to
document its characteristics. Such studies are needed in order to document the
status quo or do a needs['] assessment in a given area of interest. (p. #)
This type of method can generate meaningful results with a small sample group
such as the one used in this study. The conclusions are based on the findings of the
interviews and aesthetic expressions that are representative of the status quo of this
phenomenon in this particular region in this specific time. The conclusions will be stated
according to the categories identified in the interviews made using the Corbin and Strauss
open coding process. Categories identified through this research process were classified
as perceptions regarding the practice of inclusion in the secondary level schools and were
examined to facilitate the interpretation and the reduction of data obtained. The research
questions are answered with these conclusions.
Conclusions
Category I. General perceptions and effectiveness of the inclusion process.
The first three research questions stated were:
1. What are the perspectives of the English as Second Language teachers on the
inclusion process in their classroom?
2. What are the perspectives of the Special Education teachers on the inclusion
process in the ELL classroom?
3. What are the perspectives of the parents on the inclusion process in the ELL
classroom?
145
Based on the findings obtained from the semi-structured interviews and the
aesthetic representations of inclusion mentioned in chapter four, the conclusions
concerning this first category were:
ESL teachers in Puerto Rico do not have the courses necessary to deal with
students with disabilities.
Teachers need professional development in the areas of handling diversity and
disabilities.
Special Education teachers were not given courses to provide remediation or
follow up in the English subject.
Regular ESL teachers make the accommodations that are required for each
student as indicated in their individual educational plan and try to accommodate
the curriculum without knowing if they are doing it right.
Special Education teachers have to be prepared in all subject areas.
Parents and teachers are not receiving courses or workshops that deal
specifically with learning disabilities and how to work with them.
Inclusion is an excellent method that, if implemented properly, can help LD
students reach their educational goals.
The proper implementation of inclusive processes requires the collaboration of
all the parties (parents, teachers, professionals, administrators, policy makers,
agencies involved, etc.).
Parents of students with special needs must provide follow up to the skills
being covered in the classrooms after school hours for there to be academic
progress.
146
Category II. Resources and support system. Research question number
four was: What are the suggestions made by all three categories of participants to
improve the inclusion process in the ELL classroom? The teachers and the parents
basically mentioned the lack of resources and support for the Special Education Program.
The conclusions concerning this matter were:
ESL teachers with large groups of students need a teacher assistant to be able
to individualize instruction.
ESL teachers need support from the Special Education staff to help LD
Administrators do not provide instructional time for ESL teachers to meet with
the team of teachers who work with LD students to accommodate the students’
needs, evaluate their progress and plan for their learning.
Administrators have to provide a technologically equipped resource room for
students to do their homework and share with their non-disabled peers that can
serve as tutors to facilitate their learning process.
Teachers need Special Education teachers or private companies to provide
learning resources (adapted books and activities) specifically developed for LD
learners to facilitate language acquisition and curriculum adaptation according
to disability.
Not all ELL classrooms are technologically equipped.
ESL teachers and parents of LD students must be in constant communication to
achieve academic goals set in the students’ IEP.
147
Category III. Teaching-learning processes. Fully inclusive schools are those
that do not differentiate between general classroom and special education classrooms. In
totally inclusive schools, students receive all their classes in the general classrooms and
any additional help or special instruction by the Special Education staff is provided in the
general classroom. The students with disabilities are treated like regular students of the
class. Nevertheless, in Puerto Rico most specialized services that involve the use of
special equipment or services that might be distracting to the rest of the group are
provided outside the regular classroom. Special Education students in these high schools
receive more intensive instructional sessions provided by the Special Education teachers
in Math, Spanish and reading comprehension in a resource room. They receive other
related services, such as therapies (speech, language therapy, occupational or physical
therapy, counseling, psychological services, and social work) in different areas assigned
in the schools. These high schools offer these interventions in available rooms.
The teaching-learning processes require dedication and time to be effective. ESL
teachers have to know about the disabilities, methodologies and strategies that are
effective for the diversity of students they have in their different groups. The final goal is
to improve the learners’ academic outcomes. The learning environment must be
adequate and supply different technological resources and materials as mentioned by the
participants of this study. The amount of students in a group can be a factor that might
affect the possibility of providing individualization as some teachers and parents
indicated. Teachers also stated that disabled students have difficulty sustaining attention
and are easily distracted. According to Barkley (1998), students should be assigned a
desk away from places that can provide distractions, such as windows or hallways, and
148
near the teacher for monitoring purposes. Some LD students are not organized. Pfiffner
& Barkley (1998) suggest that teachers can find ways to communicate with parents and
send assignments daily, such as individual folders. ESL teachers have to deal with
various characteristics such as: deficient learning strategies, poor reading skills, motor
skills (copy slowly), inability to reason abstractly, difficulty interpreting what is read and
reasoning, etc. Adapting instruction requires commitment, willingness, and time.
Teachers have to present their lessons using various modalities, such as creating visuals,
power points and recordings (audio and video tapes). Most of the interviewed teachers
pointed out the lack of time as a primary factor or cause of their inability to adapt or
differentiate instruction. The conclusions concerning this category were:
ESL teachers need instructional time to adapt and differentiate instruction.
The learning environment is an essential factor for the teaching-learning process
to be effective and must be prepared and maintained accordingly.
Special needs students require individualization.
Parents and teachers have to be in constant communication and construct a
working relationship to improve the students’ learning.
Category IV. Barriers precluding the success of the inclusive process.
Teachers’ and parents’ perspectives concerning the barriers that preclude the inclusive
paradigm in schools are various. At this specific setting, teachers and parents mentioned
various factors that were affecting the Special Education program. The conclusions based
on these perspectives were:
149
Teachers lack preparation concerning teaching methodologies and techniques for
disabled students and time for planning and differentiating instruction affecting
LD students.
Large amount of students in groups limits the teachers’ possibility of
individualizing instruction.
High schools must provide a resource room equipped with computers, printers,
copiers and internet access that is opened during school hours for all students
(regular and with disabilities) to do their assignments and for tutoring purposes.
The Department of Education must evaluate the requirements for educators to be
certified in various teaching areas to include courses that help them deal with
diversity and disabilities.
Parent involvement in their children’s education is imperative.
Resources and support must be allocated effectively.
Paper work must be minimized to provide time for differentiating instruction.
Category V: Suggestions to improve the inclusive process in the ELL.
Classroom. All the participants made suggestions on how to improve the services
offered to students with special needs. The conclusions concerning their suggestions are:
A reevaluation of teachers’ certification requirements in order to include courses
that help educators deal with students that have special needs.
The allotment of time for planning among concerning parties must be a priority of
schools’ administrators.
Resources must be distributed effectively by government agencies.
150
Parents must receive workshops and conferences that help them deal with the
particular needs of their children.
The physical school environment of these schools must be improved to facilitate
the learning process of these adolescents.
Group arrangements in a school must consider the amount of students that have
special needs in that group and their disability.
Implications
The implications of not complying with laws and human rights are definitely a
serious matter. Education is fundamental in society. Providing the best services and
education to all students is placing the foundation for our future generation. The
formation of professionals and good citizens is the responsibility of all governments. The
Special Education Program has its purpose. All students deserve to be treated equally
and placed in the least restrictive environment. Parents in these high schools are pleased
with the achievements gained so far. There is a long way to go.
Teachers, parents, administrators, agencies and specialists must join forces to
create a better and equal society. The students with special needs have the right to
receive quality education and to be able to move towards independence. The teaching
staff must be prepared to handle diversity, make accommodations and facilitate the
learning of the curriculum. ESL teachers need resources and support to be able to help
these students. Education must be a priority in any prosperous civilization. The
implications of not prioritizing the education of all the members of society will definitely
incur in a poor educated society.
151
The Department of Education is responsible for providing courses to teachers,
reviewing certification requirements of the teaching staff and assuring the best
educational environment for these students with disabilities. Teachers cannot be made
responsible for processes in which they lack knowledge and practice. They also have the
imperative need of available books and materials adapted to the different disabilities.
This phenomenological study took place during a time of economic crisis in
Puerto Rico. The experiences with this phenomenon and the future of it have to be
reviewed at a later time to verify the status quo again. At this moment, this program will
encounter great difficulties to improve the current situation.
Recommendations
Based on the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews and the artistic
illustrations it must be stated that the participants believe all children have the right to an
equal education and equal treatment. The parents are pleased with the way their children
are treated at their schools. Even though, the Special Education program can be
improved to provide a better education for students with disabilities. This section will
provide several recommendations that can be considered priority.
Even though teachers and parents are somewhat confused on the definitions of the
terms inclusion and integration; they understand what is being discussed in this study.
The findings of this investigation are consistent with other related studies. The battle of
parents with students with disabilities has gone a long way. The school system has
experienced a change or reform from segregation (mid 1800s) to integration (1970s till
1980s), and is now moving towards being inclusive (1990s). The inclusion method has
opponents and allies. Opponents and allies find ways of defending their point of view.
152
No matter what is stated, teachers are the ones that deal with the situation on a day-to-day
basis. One of the most outstanding barriers is the teachers’ lack of preparation. Connie
Titone (2005) of the Villanova University reported that one of the major obstacles for the
past ten years to successful inclusion has been the lack of effective preparation for
teachers. The amount of students that belong to the Special Education program is
increasing every year, as evidenced in the initial chapters. All teachers will be working
with students with special needs. (a) The first recommendation is that teachers need to be
educated in matters concerning diversity, differentiation and disabilities. According to
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986) many general education teachers do not have the training
and skills to accommodate special needs students in a general education classroom
setting. It is indicated that professional training and supportive services can help address
these concerns that many parents and teachers have nowadays.
In Puerto Rico, the educational system is in a restructuring process. Puerto Rico is
going through a deep economic crisis that is limiting the resources that schools receive.
Therefore, (b) the second recommendation is that resources and support for these teachers
be allocated mindfully and meticulously. Parents are concerned with these matters as
evidenced in their interviews.
Teachers, aside from dealing with learning theories and diverse policies, also have
to deal with the accommodations of the Special Education students. Many educators
work extra hours in their home without compensation. The paperwork load is a major
anxiety for these professionals. Standards, expectations, curriculum maps,
differentiation, assessment, reteaching, interventions, electronic attendance,
individualization, activities, exercises, monthly plan, daily plan, pacing, counseling,
153
tabulations, testing, and tables of specifications are some of the long list of terms that
teachers are associated with. Therefore, (c) a third recommendation is to minimize the
paperwork to provide time for planning with the staff that deals with this population of
students.
Many students with disabilities have short attention spans. Teachers must be
creative. They have to make adaptations, use colorful graphics, and incorporate videos
among many other existing possibilities to enhance their classes. ESL teachers indicated
that there is a need of materials (books, exercises, audio, video tapes, etc.) made
exclusively for students with special needs. Therefore, (d) the fourth recommendation is
the acquisition of textbooks, visuals, cardboards, technology, needed audiovisual
equipment and exercises that can be used with students that have diverse disabilities.
These resources will improve the acquisition of skills.
Parent involvement is a crucial factor for students with disabilities to improve
academically and socially. Teachers and parents recognize that parents play an important
role in the academic improvement of the students with disabilities. Two of the
participants indicated that they visited the school twice each month. It is recommended
that the parents of students with disabilities visit the school twice a week. Most of the
students that belong to the special education program require follow up in the various
subjects covered in the school. It is also necessary that the parents provide remedial or
corrective lessons at home, especially in the subjects that are difficult for their children.
Teachers are not the only ones that can be held responsible for the academic situation of
the students with disabilities.
154
Recommendations for Research. This study was carried out in order to
understand the phenomenon of inclusion as experienced by teachers and parents in
certain high schools in Las Piedras school district. This investigation is one of a limited
number of studies carried out in Puerto Rico within this scope of study. The lack of
research on teachers’ and parents’ perspectives of inclusion at the high school level is
extremely limited. Most of the studies were carried out in the elementary grades and in
subjects that are not English. There is a need for further additional qualitative and
quantitative inquiries related to the inclusion paradigm. The contributions made can be
positive to improve students’ performance and the delivery of service by all parties
involved in the teaching of students with special needs.
The recommendations for further investigation are:
1. The replication of studies like this one in other school districts to expand
knowledge and understanding of this phenomenon for analysis of similarities
and differences. The purpose is to improve inclusive practices.
2. Studies concerning subjects such as parents’ involvement in educational
matters, methodologies or strategies effective for teaching students with
special needs, and the creation of an inclusive model.
3. Case studies of schools with effective early intervention programs that can
help minimize improper registration of students that do not exhibit disability.
155
References
ADA Amendments Act (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa.cfm
Algozzine, B. & Ysseldyke, J. (2006). The fundamentals of special education. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Allan, A.J. & Randy, L.J. (2005). Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation: A step-by
step guide. California: Corwin Press.
ALLFIE (2015). Integration is not Inclusion. Retrieved from
http://www.allfie.org.uk/pages/useful%20info/integration.html
Anti-Defamation League (2005). A Brief History of the Disability Rights Movement.
Retrieved from: http://archive.adl.org/education/curriculum_connections
/fall_2005/fall_2005_lesson5_history.html
Atherton, J.S. (2015). Learning and Teaching. Constructivist Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.htm
Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students
with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five case studies.
Journal of Special Education S, 29(2), 163-180.
Balescut, J. & Eklindh, K. (2006). Literacy and persons with developmental disabilities:
Why and how? Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006,
Literacy for Life. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001459/145940e.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
156
Bateman, D. & Bateman, C. (2002). What Does a Principal Need to Know about
Inclusion? Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473828).
Black, K. (2010). Business Statistics: Contemporary Decision Making (6th ed.). New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Bourne, J. (2002). Home Languages in the literacy hour. National Literacy Strategy
Retrieved from
www.naldic.org.uk/Resources/NALDIC/Teaching%20and%20Leaning/Homelang
uageintheliteracyhour.pdf
Braunsteiner, Maria-Luise & Mariano-Lapidus, Susan (2014). A perspective on
inclusion: Challenges for the future. Global Education Review, 1 (1). 32-43
Brief History of the Disability Rights Movement. Retrieved from
http://archive.adl.org/education/curriculum_connections/fall_2005/fall_2005_less
on5_history.html
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, R.B. (2006). Doing your dissertation in business and management: The reality of
research and writing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown v. Board of Education, U.S. 483 (1954).
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/repo_items/legacy/19-
trainerguide.pdf
157
Bunch, G., Pearpoint, J. & Al-Salah R. (2011). Equity, social justice, disability and
secondary schools: What regular subject teachers can do. Toronto: Inclusion
Press.
Capell: English language learners and Special Education: A resource handbook (2011).
Retrieved from
http://www.sde.ce.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/bilingual/CAPELL_SPED_reso
urce_guide.pdf
Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980).The efficacy of special versus regular class placement
for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14
(3), 295309. Retrieved from http://sed.sagepub.com/content/14/3/295.abstract
Carroll, A., Forlin, C. & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special
education on the attitudes of Australian pre-service general educators towards
people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30 (3), 65-79.
Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Effects of peer
support interventions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social
interactions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 15-
25.
Cole, C. (2006). Report No Child Left Behind is out of step with special education.
Retrieved September 10, 2015 from
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4379.html
Catálogo Sagrado Corazón (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.sagrado.edu/publicaciones/Catalogo-2014-2016.pdf
158
Center for Parent Information and Resources. (2014). Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/idea/
Clearinghouse, E. (2003). History of mainstreaming in US schools. Retrieved September
10, 2015 from http://liquisearch.com/mainstreaming_education
Cole, C. (2006). Education Policy Brief, Closing the Achievement Gap Series: Part III,
“What is the Impact of NCLB on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities?”.
Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 4 (11). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495750.pdf
Constitución del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico (1952). Lex Juris, Puerto Rico.
Retrieved from http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm
Cook, B.G., Semmel, M.I., & Gerber, M.M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special
education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities: Critical
differences of opinion. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 199-207.
Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general
educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 25, 262-277.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Cortés, R. (2015, October 2). “El secreto de los números oficiales”. El Nuevo Día. San
Juan, P.R. 4-5.
Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. (1999). Ley 149, Acta Orgánica del
Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR.
159
Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. (2001). Descripción del Puesto DE-16. San
Juan, Puerto Rico.
Departamento de Educación. (2003). Reglamento de personal docente de Puerto Rico
que deroga el reglamento Núm. 3083 de 21 de mayo de 1984 según enmendado.
San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. (2004). Manual de procedimientos de
Educación Especial. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. (2004). Reglamento de Certificación del
Personal Docente de Puerto Rico que deroga el Reglamento Núm. 6760 del 5 de
febrero de 2004. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. (2014). Carta Circular 8-2013- 2014:
Política Pública Sobre el Contenido Curricular del Programa de Inglés para
todas las escuelas Públicas Elementales, Intermedias y Superiores. San Juan,
Puerto Rico.
Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. (2014). Carta circular 13-2014-2015:
Directrices y disposiciones para radicar la solicitud de autorización para realizar
investigaciones y sus fases relacionadas: la validación de instrumentos o pruebas
piloto en el Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Departamento de Educación. (2014). Carta Circular 37-2013- 2014: Política Pública
Sobre la Organización Escolar y Requisitos de Graduación de las Escuelas de la
Comunidad Elementales y Secundarias del Departamento de Educación de
Puerto Rico. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
160
Department of Education. (2003). Curricular Framework: English Program. San Juan,
Puerto Rico.
Department of Education. (2007). Content Standards and Grade Level Expectations. San
Juan, Puerto Rico.
DeSimone, J. & Parmar, R. (2006). Issues and challenges for middle school mathematics
teachers in inclusion classrooms. School, Science and Mathematics, 106, 338-348.
Díaz, J. (2015). La Educación Especial en Puerto Rico. [Electronic Version]. Educación
Especial-PR, 1, 1-3.
Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania. (2008). Assistive technology for persons with
disabilities: An overview. Retrieved from
http://drnpa.org/File/publications/assistive-technology-for-persons-with-
disabilities-an-overview.pdf
Dervarics, C. and O’Brien, E. (2011). Back to school: How parent involvement affects
student achievement (full report) – Retrieved March 16, 2016 from
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Parent-
Involvement/Parent-Involvement.html#sthash.4t3Pu4EJ.dpuf
Douvanis, G. & Hulsey, D. (2002). The Least Restrictive Environment Mandate: How
has it been Defined by the Courts? Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Disabilities and Gifted Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED469442) Educación especial en las escuelas: paquete de información.
Retrieved from
http://www.spannj.org/Spanish/educacion_especial_en_las_escuel.htm
161
Educación Especial en Puerto Rico. (2015). Leyes y reglamentos. Ley de servicios
integrales para personas con impedimentos. Ley Núm. 51 del 7 de junio de 1996.
Retrieved from http://www.educacionespecialpr.info/leyes.html
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law 94-142 (1975).
EHA- Education for All Handicapped Children. Special Education News on October 20,
2015. Retrieved from http://www.specialednews.com/special-education-
dictionary/eha---education-for-all-handicapped-children-act.htm
Ellis-Christensen, T. (2016) What does an ESL teacher do? Retrieved from
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-does-an-esl-teacher-do.htm
El Mundo. (2014, April 4). El 34% de la población estudiantil en Puerto Rico recibe
educación especial. Retrieved from http// www.elmundo.pr
Florian, L. & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher
education for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (4), 594-
601.
Fox, N., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level:
Lessons for a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64, 81-98.
Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. (1996). Including students with special needs: A practical
guide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Govtrack.us (2015). Summaries for the Assistive Technology Act of 2004. Retrieved from
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr4278/summary
Hardin, B. (2005). Physical Education Teachers’ Reflections on Preparation for
Inclusion. The Physical Educator, 62(1), 44-56.
162
Henson, Kenneth T. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered education: a knowledge
base. Education. 124: 5 (12).
Hines, R. A. (2001). Inclusion in Middle Schools. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED459000). Retrieved from http://familiestogetherinc.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/inclusionandmiddleschool.pdf
Hunt, C.A. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative concepts in proposal writing: Similarities
and Differences. Retrieved from http://und.edu/instrct/wstevens/PROPOSAL
CLASS/Huntpaper.htm
Hunt, P. (2000). Community is what I think everyone is talking about. Remedial &
Special Education, 21 (5), 305.
Hunt, P. & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive education programs, practice and
outcomes for students with severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 31
(1), 3-29.
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003). Collaborative teaming to support
students at risk and students with severe disabilities in general education
classrooms. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 315-332.
Idol, L. (1997). Key questions related to building collaborative and inclusive schools.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 384-394.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub, L. 108-446.
163
Informe ejecutivo sentencia por estipulación caso Rosa Lydia Vélez (2002). Retrieved
from http://es.scribd.com/mobile/doc/23379668/Informe-Ejecutivo-Sentencia-
Por-Estipulacion-Caso-Rosa-Lydia-Velez
Irmsher, K. (1995). Inclusive Education in Practice: The Lessons of Pioneering School
Districts (Report No. ISSN-0095-6694). Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study
Council, University of Oregon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED380913). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED380913.pdf
Johnson, A. (2001). Attitudes towards mainstreaming: Implications for In-service training
and teaching the handicapped. Education, 107, 229-233.
Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1986). Models of Teaching (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Jung, C. G. & Wolfgang, Pauli (1955). The Interpretation of Nature and Psyche. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Kavale, K.A. & Glass, G. V. (1982). The efficacy of special education interventions and
practices: A compendium of meta-analysis findings. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 15, 1-14.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). School’s not really a place for reading: A research
synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(1), 1-12.
Kluth, P., Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2001). Our School Doesn’t Offer Inclusion and
Other Legal Blunders. Educational Leadership, 24-27.
Knoblauch, Bernadette and Sorenson, Barbara. (2004.) IDEA’s Definition of Disabilities.
Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/ideas.htm
164
Kochhar, C. A., West, L. L., & Taymans, J. M. (2000). Successful Inclusion: Practical
Strategies for a Shared Responsibility. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Laski, F.J. (1991). Achieving Integration during the second revolution. Luanna H. Meyer,
Charles A. Peck, and Lou Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with
severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. 409-421.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Laws.com. (2015) What is the Definition of Discrimination? Retrieved from
http://civil.laws.com/discrimination
Ley de la Carta de Derechos de las Personas con Impedimentos. Ley Núm. 238 de 31de
agosto de 2004. Lex Juris de Puerto Rico. Retrieved from
http://www.lexjuris.com/lexlex/leyes2004/lexl2004238.htm
Ley Orgánica del Departamento de Educación del E.L.A. (1990). Lex Juris de Puerto
Rico. Retrieved from http://www.lexjuris.com/leyorg/lexeduca.htm
Ley IDEA. (2014). Congreso de los Estados Unidos.
Ley para crear el “Programa de Inclusión del Sistema Educativo de Puerto Rico” Ley
Núm. 104 de 26 de agosto de 2005. Lex Juris de Puerto Rico. Retrieved from
http://www.lexjuris.com/LEXLEX/Leyes2005/lexl2005104.htm
Ley para instituir el servicio de Evaluación Vocacional y de carrera como un derecho
para los estudiantes con impedimentos de Educación Especial. Ley Núm. 263 de
13 de diciembre de 2006. Lex Juris de Puerto Rico. Retrieved from
http://www.lexjuris.com/lexlex/leyes2006/lexl2006263.htm
165
Lewis, R., & Doorlag, D. (1995). Teaching special students in the mainstream (4th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Lieberman, A. & McLaughinlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change:
Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 673-677.
Lipsky, D.K. & Gardtner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reforms: Transforming
America’s classrooms. Baltimore: MD: Brooks.
Lipton, D. (1994). The “Full Inclusion” Court Cases: 1989-1994. New York:
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion.
Madden, N.A. & Slavin R.E. (1983). Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 519-569.
Maheady, L. Harper, G.F. & Sacca, M.K. (1988). Peer-mediated reading instruction: A
promising approach to meeting the diverse needs of LD adolescents. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 11, 108-113.
McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical
and Research Foundations. A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices
about inclusive schooling. University of Montana, Rural Institute on Disabilities.
McLaughlin, M. J., & Nolet, V. (2004). What every Principal Needs to Know about
Special Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mitchel, R. & F. Myles. (2004). Second language learning theories. New York:
Routledge.
Monteith, D. (1994). Special Education Training: A Must for Today’s School Leaders.
Orangeburg, SC: South Carolina State University
Myers, M.D. (1997, May 20). Qualitative research in information systems. MISQ.
166
National Center for Education Statistics. Number and percentage of children served under
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by age group and
state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1990–91 through 2011–12. Digest for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.70.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Table 397. Digest of Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_397.asp.
National Center on Educational Restructuring and inclusion. (1995). National study on
inclusive education, New York: University of New York.
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
NICHCY (2013). Severe and/or Multiple Disabilities NICHCY Fact Sheet 10. Retrieved
from
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ttasystem/teaching/Disabilities/Services%20to%
20Children%20with%20Disabilities/Disabilities/disabl_fts_00016_061105.html
No Child Left Behind: Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.
(2001.) Retrieved from http://www.aypf.org/publications/NCLB-Disabilities.pdf
Olinger, Becky Lorraine. (2013). Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives of Inclusion in the
Regular Education Classroom. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved
from http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1179
Osgood, R. L. (2005). The history of inclusion in the United States. Washington, D.C:
Gallaudet University Press.
167
Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the
research. Contemporary Education, 68, 234-238.
Policy and Advocacy: Carl D. Perkins Act. Retrieved from
https://acteonline.org/perkins/#.VgMRoTZdGUk
Pomerants, D. J., Windell, I. J., & Smith, M. A. (1994). The effects of classwide peer
tutoring and accommodations on the acquisition of content area knowledge by
elementary students with learning disabilities. LD Forum, 19(2), 28-32.
Prater, M.A. (2003). She will succeed: Strategies for success in inclusive classrooms.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 58-64.
Programa de Asistencia Tecnológica de Puerto Rico. Ley núm. 264 del 31 de agosto del
2000. Lex Juris de Puerto Rico. Retrieved from
http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm
Pulliam, J. & Van Patten J.J. (2007). History of Education in America. 9th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Qualitative Research Consultant Association. (2015). What is Qualitative Research?
Retrieved from http://www.qrca.org/?page=whatisqualresearch&hhSeachTerms
=%22Qualitative+and+research%22
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Retrieved from https://www.disability.gov/rehabilitation-act-
1973/
Reynolds, M.C., Wang, M.C. & Walberg, H.J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of
special education and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-398.
168
Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B., & Kasari, C. (2003). General education teachers’
relationships with included students with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 33(2), 123-130.
Rose, D. (2001). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology,
16, 66–67.
Ross, J. (1999). Ways of approaching research. Fortunecity. Retrieved from
http://fortunecity.com/greenfield/grizzly/432/rra3.htm
Ryan, M. & Ryan, J. (2013). The Blog: Which Works best for your child- Inclusion,
Integration or Segregation? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mallory-and-jade-ryan/best-teaching-
methods_b_4101903.html
Sailor, W. (2002). President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education: Research
Agenda Task Force. Nashville, TN.
Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. G. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and
without disabilities and their educators. Remedial & Special Education, 20(2),
114-127.
Scruggs, T.A., Mastropieri, M.A., & Mc Duffie, K.A. (2007). Co-teaching in Inclusive
Classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4),
392416.
169
Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez. (2014). UT Catalog of Undergraduate Programs.
Retrieved from http://www.suagm.edu/utdoctoral/aa_ut/pdf/catalogos/UT-
Catalog-Undergraduate-Programs-2014-15.rev.8SEPT.pdf
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Leavy, M. (1984). Using Cooperative learning to teach
Mathematics to students with learning disabilities. LD Online. Retrieved from
http://www.ldonline.org/article/5932/
Soto, G., Müller, E., Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (2001). Critical issues in the inclusion of
students who use augmentative and alternative communication: An educational
team perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 62-72.
Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. (2007). Classroom
variables and access to the general education curriculum for students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101-120.
Spooner, F., Baker, J.N., Harris, A.A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. & Browder, D. (2007).
Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development.
Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108-116.
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1992). Curriculum considerations in inclusive
classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. & Bunch, G. (1989). Introduction and historical
background. S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & Forest, M. (Eds.) Educating all
students in the mainstream of regular education. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
170
Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students?
Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-40.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language acquisition. In G. Cook
& Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Teacher Vision. (n.d.) Teaching English-language learners with learning difficulties.
Retrieved from https://www.teachervision.com/learning-disabilities/bilingual-
education/10267.html
The State Wide Advocacy Network. (2015). Least restrictive environment & inclusion.
Retrieved from
http://www.spannj.org/BasicRights/least_restrictive_environment.htm
Titone, C. (2005).The philosophy of inclusion: Roadblocks and remedies for the teacher
and the teacher educator. Journal or Educational Thought, 39(1), 7-32.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2013). Exceptional
lives: Special education in today’s schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca World Conference on Special Needs Education:
Access and Quality. UNESCO and the Ministry of Education, Spain. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO. (1990). World Conference on EFA, Jomtien, 1990. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-
agenda/education-for-all/the-efa-movement/jomtien-1990/
171
Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico. (2013). Universidad Interamericana
Catalog. Retrieved from http://documentos.inter.edu/docs/index.php?article=155
Universidad de Puerto Rico, Recinto de Humacao. (2013). UPRH Catalog. Retrieved
from http://www.uprh.edu/pdf_files/Catalogo2013-2014e.pdf
U.S. Const. amend XIV.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/ESSA
Van Manen M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario: Althouse
Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of Practice. Phenomenology & Practice 1(1),
11-30. Retrieved from http://www.maxvanmanen.com/files/2011/04/2007-
Phenomenology-of-Practice.pdf
Villa R. & Thousand, J. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students?
Educational Leadership, 52, 36-40.
Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the
western European societies. European Journal of Special needs Education , 18
(1), 1735.
Voltz, D. L., Sims, M. J., Nelson, B., & Bivens, C. (2005). M2ECCA: A framework for
inclusion in the context of standards-based reform. Retrieved from
http://www.dldcec.org/pdf/m2ecca.pdf
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
172
Waldron, N., Cole, C., & Majd, M. (2001). The academic progress of students across
inclusive and traditional settings: A two year study Indiana inclusion study.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana Institute on Disability & Community.
Walther-Thomas, C. S., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-
teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4),
255-264.
Warnock, H. M. (1978). Special education needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry
into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. Education In
England: The history of our schools. Retrieved from
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/warnock/warnock1978.html
Webb, L.D. (2006). The history of American education: A great American experiment.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Weisel, A., & Tur‐Kaspa, H. (2002). Effects of labels and personal contact on
teachers’ attitudes toward students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10 (1), 1‐
10.
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Westling, D. & Fox, L. (2009). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Whitbread, K. (2015). What Does the Research Say About Inclusive Education?
Wrightslaw. Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.incls.rsrch.whitbread.htm#sthash.oVvDGeM
k.dpuf
173
Wigle, S., Wilcox, D. & Manges, C. (1994). Full Inclusion of Exceptional Students:
Three Perspectives. Chicago, IL: Mid-West Educational Research Association.
Winzer, M. & Mazurek, K. (2012). Analyzing inclusive schooling for students with
disabilities in International contexts: Outline of a Model. Journal of International
Needs Education, 15 (1), 12-23.
Wrightslaw. (2009). Glossary of Special Education and Legal Terms. Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/links/glossary.sped.legal.htm#sthash.Bvw6txGN.dpu
f
Wu, X. (2003). Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of the
classroom environment. System, 31, 501-517.
174
Appendixes
175
Appendix A: IRB Evaluation/Approval
176
177
Appendix B: Invitation Letter for Participants
178
179
Appendix C: Informative Sheet for English Teachers
180
181
Appendix D: Informative Sheet for Parents and Special Education Teachers
182
Appendix E: DEPR Letter of Authorization of Investigation
183
184
Appendix F: ESL Teachers’ Interview Protocol
185
186
187
188
Appendix G: Special Education Teachers’ Interview Protocol
189
190
191
192
193
Appendix H: Parents’ Interview Protocol
194
195
196
197
198
Appendix I: Proofreader’s Certification
