JASH2000, Vol. 25, No.3, 129-141

copyright 2000 byThe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps

Useful Practices in Inclusive Education:A Preliminary View of What Experts in

Moderate to Severe Disabilitiesare Saying

Lewis JacksonUniversity of Northern Colorado

Diane Lea RyndakUniversity of Florida

Felix BillingsleyUniversity of Washington

We examined the opinions of experts in the field ofmoderate to severe disabilities on useful practices forinclusive education across nine categories of practices:promoting inclusive values in the school; collaborationbetween general and special educators; collaboration be-tween educators and related service providers; family in-volvement; choosing and planning what to teach; sched-uling, coordinating, and delivering inclusive serviceswithin the school; assessing and reporting student prog-ress on an ongoing basis; instructional strategies; andsupporting students with challenging behavior. An ex-amination of emergent themes within each categoryyielded a rich description of the depth and breadth ofpractices that are perceived by these experts as useful inpromoting and sustaining successful school inclusion.Importantly, many of the identified practices requiresome level ofeducational service restructuring, includingredefining the roles and functions of special educationteachers, related services personnel, and classroomteachers. We also found that our sample of experts reliedon sources of information other than empirical researchin the development of their stores of wisdom on usefulpractices. Although preliminary in nature, our studycontributes to the growing body of literature on inclusiveeducation. It describes a range ofpractices perceived bya sample of experts to be associated with successfulschool inclusion. It also identifies a number ofimportantthemes that can inform future research in this area.

We express our appreciation to Connie Pious for her edi-torial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints toLewis Jackson, Division of Special Education, University ofNorthern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639. E-mail: ljackson@bentley.unco.edu

129

DESCRIPTORS: school inclusion, best practices,moderate to severe disabilities, collaboration

As more students with disabilities are placed in gen-eral education classrooms (McLeskey, Henry, &Hodges, 1998), inclusive education practices will in-creasingly influence how they are served. Yet, althoughGallagher (1997) predicted that students with high-incidence disabilities will be taught in general educationclasses in the 21st century, he was reluctant to predictthe same for students with low-incidence disabilities.This is disconcerting because of evidence suggestingthat supported inclusive education is beneficial for stu-dents with more severe disabilities (Peck, Donaldson,& Pezzoli, 1990; Peck, Schwartz, Staub, Gallucci, Bill-ingsley, & White, 1996; Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline,& Morrison, 1995). Questions are also being raisedabout the efficacy and value of self-contained modelsfor students with severe disabilities (Hunt & Farron-Davis, 1992; Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, &Goetz, 1994; Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, 1999).

Some families have had trouble securing inclusiveplacements for their children with moderate to severedisabilities (Erwin & Soodak, 1995; Ryndak, Bemus,McGinnes, & Brown, 2000; Ryndak, Brown, Bemus,Brown, & McGinnes, 2000; Ryndak, Downing, Morri-son, & Williams, 1996). This could possibly reflect civilrights issues, which will not be resolved simply by abody of data supporting inclusion. However, researchthat delineates best inclusive practices and potentialbenefits may help to dismantle some barriers to inclu-sion within schools.

To this end, a large practitioner-directed literatureon delivering inclusive education for students withmoderate to severe disabilities has evolved (Buswell,

130 Inclusive Practices

Schaffner, & Seyler, 1999; Downing, 1996; Jorgensen,1998; Ryndak & Alper, 1996; Sapon-Shevin, 1999; Sie-gel-Causey & Allinder, 1998; York-Barr, 1996). This isaccompanied by research examining (a) whether inte-grated educational placements are more beneficial thanrestrictive placements (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Carl-berg & Kavale, 1980; Ryndak et aI., 1995); (b) howparents, professionals, and students feel about inclusion(Bennett, Lee, & Lueke, 1998; Fisher, Pumpian, & Sax,1998; Moberg, Zumberg, & Reinmaa, 1997; Palmer,Borthwick-Duffy, & Widaman, 1998; Ryndak et aI.,1996); and (c) the general education room as a mediumfor learning and participation (Hollowood, Salisbury,Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1995; Logan & Keefe, 1997;Logan & Malone, 1998). Definitive research addressingthe usefulness of a multitude of inclusive practices islacking.

McDonnell (1998) argued that much of the early re-search on good educational practice for students withmoderate to severe disabilities is questionable for in-clusive education because it separated students fromthe "on-going instructional activities of the class" (p. 210).He proposed that successful inclusion requires developingan instructional technology that views student learning"as the combined effects of instructional methods usedfor all students in the class and those used to meet theunique needs of each student" (p. 200, italics his).

Single-subject and comparative research is limited inscope because it is labor intensive and demands highinternal validity. However, this approach will be criticalin the development of the new methodology. Surveysand interviews, on the other hand, offer a way to gathercomprehensive and detailed data about a range of prac-tices and their relative usefulness.

Early survey research on inclusive practices often fo-cused on social relationships, reflecting a view that in-clusion could primarily be used for its potential socialbenefits. In a survey conducted by Hamre-Nietupski,Hendrickson, Nietupski, and Sasso (1993) to find thebest ways to facilitate relationships between studentswith and without disabilities, special education teacherssaid that relationships were most likely to evolve whenthe students were educated together. Effective strate-gies for enhancing relationships included collaboration,cooperative learning, direct instruction of social inter-action skills, and peer tutoring.

Billingsley and Kelley (1994) asked project directors,professors, administrators, and researchers whether 51instructional methods used with students with signifi-cant disabilities were acceptable for use in general edu-cation. The methods were grouped into setting events,delivery systems, naturalistic strategies, antecedentconditions, transfer of stimulus control, consequentevents, and generalization/maintenance. Respondentsviewed most of the methods as acceptable; however, 12strategies were seen as potentially inappropriate in aca-demic settings by at least 20% of the respondents. Some

of these, such as one-to-one instruction, massed trials,and graduated guidance, are staples within self-con-tained and community settings.

Whereas the Billingsley and Kelley (1994) samplewas somewhat removed from schools, Wolery, Werts,Caldwell, Snyder, and Lisowski (1995) mailed surveysto special and general education public school teacherswho were experienced in providing inclusive services.From a list of 24 supports, respondents were asked toidentify both "necessary" and "available" supports forsuccessful inclusion. Wolery et aI. (1995) found that thediscrepancy between necessary and available supportswas often substantial: "Generally, the teachers reportedthat they 'had' less than they 'needed'." (p. 17). How-ever, the supports that teachers viewed as critical forsuccessful inclusion were clear: training, release timefor meetings, support from family, and support person-nel. Teachers who had successful inclusion experienceswere less likely to report a discrepancy between whatthey needed and what was available than were teachersreporting unsuccessful experiences (Werts, Wolery,Snyder, & Caldwell, 1996).

Coots, Bishop, and Grenot-Scheyer (1998) inter-viewed four elementary school teachers who had in-cluded students with significant disabilities in theirclasses and who were viewed by colleagues and othersas successful. Three themes emerged: the adaptationsteachers used and frustrations about their appropriate-ness; the support roles necessary of the general educa-tion teacher and of others; and teacher philosophy, suchas "transformation and reflection during the first year,""equal access to the core curriculum," and "classroomas a community" (p. 326). Coots et aI. noted the impor-tant implications for research of these themes becauseof the "limited database in this area" (p. 328).

In contrast to integrated education (Brinker &Thorpe, 1986), inclusive education emphasizes the full-time participation of students with moderate to severedisabilities in age- and grade-level general educationclassrooms (Hunt & Goetz, 1997). Inclusive educationis a relatively recent innovation. This may partially ex-plain why there is a limited database on the range of themost promising practices needed to ensure the robust-ness of inclusion with these students.

In this study, we explored what experts in inclusiveeducation for students with moderate to severe disabili-ties identify as "useful practices" across a range of in-structional and administrative decision-making areas.Although preliminary, the broad scope of our findingsoffers an excellent starting point for generating a re-search agenda that can guide the field toward a moresystematic and comprehensive examination of promis-ing practices in inclusive education.

Because research broadly establishing a cadre ofpractices and accompanying decision rules is scarce, wealso wanted to investigate the sources of wisdom thatare being tapped by those who are immersed in

Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley 131

inclusive education. These persons may sometimes feelthe need to go beyond the available empirical researchbase for guidance. Practices that have a limited re-search base may be fruitful areas for future systematicinvestigations.

Methods

ParticipantsWe defined experts in the field of school inclusion for

students with moderate to severe disabilities in twoways. First, experts were persons who had authored arti-cles related to inclusive education in the Journal of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Excep-tional Children, and Teaching Exceptional Children.These journals were selected because they publish mostof the articles related to services for students with mod-erate to severe disabilities. In addition, they appeal tothree different audiences: persons interested in severedisabilities, those with broad interests in special educa-tion research, and special education practitioners. With thisselection process, our sample of experts represent writ-ings targeted for each readership. Second, experts werepersons who had authored or edited professional booksrelated to inclusive educational services for studentswith moderate to severe disabilities. We included onlyarticles and books published between 1990 and 1996.

A publication's definition of inclusion was never usedas a rationale for eliminating authors from the expertpool. However, a publication was removed from con-sideration if the researchers collectively agreed that itexclusively addressed disability categories other thanmoderate to severe (e.g., mild disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders) or if it advocated mainstreamingof students with disabilities in general education classessolely to acquire specific academic content. This selec-tion process yielded 140 publications, and a total of 181authors, including all the authors of a publication.

InstrumentationAn Jl-pagc questionnaire was developed that ad-

dressed practices in inclusive education. Aside from in-structions, there were three sections; respondents wereasked to provide basic information about themselves,to define school inclusion, and to give their opinions onuseful practices associated with inclusive education.

An earlier investigation (Ryndak, Jackson, & Bill-ingsley, in press) focused on the first and second sec-tions of this questionnaire, that is, the characteristics ofthe respondents and their definitions of inclusion. Al-though these data are briefly summarized in the Resultssection, the primary purpose of this investigation is toanalyze answers to the third section of the question-naire: the experts' opinions on useful practices in inclu-sive education.

The useful practices section comprised nine differentcategories in which inclusive practices could be framed.

In developing these nine, our intent was to create cat-egories that were comprehensive in representing thewide range of practices that might be required for ef-fective inclusive education. The categories were devel-oped in two steps. First, we used our knowledge ofinclusive education practices and the professional lit-erature to independently generate categories in whichpractices could be usefully catalogued and arranged.Then, through dialogue, we explored the similaritiesand differences in our respective categories. We arrivedat consensus on which categorical structure seemed tobest capture the full repertoire of practices that canmake inclusive education viable and productive. Thesenine categories encompass promoting inclusive valuesin the school; collaboration between general and spe-cial educators; collaboration between educators and re-lated service providers; family involvement; choosingand planning what to teach (i.e., curriculum and indi-vidualized education plans [IEP] content); scheduling,coordinating, and delivering inclusive services withinthe school; assessing and reporting student progress onan ongoing basis; instructional strategies; and support-ing students with challenging behavior.

We asked respondents to provide answers to the fol-lowing two questions for each category. First, we asked,"Can you describe up to three practices that you feltwere useful within that category?" Second, we asked,"Can you identify the source(s) of your knowledge forthese practices?" A checklist of possible sources wasprovided, consisting of logic/values; empirical researchliterature; examples and stories from others; nonre-search professional publications (e.g., books, positionpapers); professional presentations or workshops; per-sonal non-research-based experiences; personal researchactivity; and/or other. Because the survey was volumi-nous, respondents were encouraged to self-select andaddress three of the nine categories, although they werenot discouraged from addressing more.

Data CollectionWe could not find addresses for 21 of the 181 authors.

Therefore, between mid-May and mid-June 1997, wemailed questionnaires to the remaining 160 people.Each questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letterdetailing the study's purpose. Respondents were askedto complete the survey by a given date or to return ituncompleted if they felt unqualified or did not wish todo so. Approximately 1 month later, a follow-up letteraccompanied by the same questionnaire was sent toeach person who had not returned a survey. To ensureconfidentiality, numbers were used to identify respon-dents for tracking and analyses.

Of the mailed surveys, 14 were returned as undeliv-erable. The total number of surveys delivered to ex-perts, therefore, was 146. Forty-seven respondents re-turned completed surveys. Eighteen returned uncom-pleted surveys and/or they were ineligible for use.

132 Inclusive Practices

These 65 surveys yielded a 450/0 response rate for sur-veys returned as per directions. However, we calculateda survey response rate of 37°~ by dividing the numberof returned and usable surveys by the total number ofsurveys delivered minus those ineligible for use(Dillman, 1978).

Analysis of Category ContentWe examined responses to two questions for each

category: What three practices did the experts identifyas useful? What particular sources of information influ-enced their opinions on useful practices? Methods ofanalyses are described below.

Useful practices. We analyzed the identified prac-tices using a content analysis process consistent withqualitative research methodology (Patton, 1987; Taylor& Bogdan, 1984). First, the three investigators dividedthe categories so that there was one primary analystand one secondary analyst for each category. The anal-ysis that occurred within each category then followedthe procedure described below. The primary analystexamined all of the identified practices within a cat-egory, constructed themes that best characterized thepractices, placed each identified practice into the themein which it best fit, then mailed a copy of the analysis tothe second analyst. The second analyst thoroughly ex-amined the data within the category and reviewed thethemes and response placements of the first analyst forsimilarities and differences in their respective interpre-tations of the data. A dialogue then ensued in which thefirst analyst's proposed themes and the placement ofpractices within those themes were critiqued by the sec-ond analyst. Consistencies and discrepancies in percep-tions were identified, explained, and evaluated. Thegoal of this process was to reach consensus on the besttheme representation for a given category and on thefitting of practices within themes.

Throughout this process, we were careful to preservethe meanings intended by specific respondents. That is,we made every attempt to ensure that a practice wasnot placed in a particular theme unless it was reason-ably clear that the respondent's representation of thatpractice was being honored by the placement.

Information Sources. For this analysis, we calculateda mean percentage across categories for the differentpossible sources of information (e.g., personal non-research-based experiences, empirical research litera-ture). Because we were especially interested in the re-liance on empirical research, we calculated the percent-age of respondents identifying the empirical researchliterature for each of the nine categories.

Results

Respondent InformationMost of the 47 respondents who returned completed

surveys (34; 72%) characterized themselves as univer-

sity faculty members. Others indicated that theyworked in the following positions: researcher (3),teacher (3), consultant (4), specialist (1), and doctoralstudent (2). Doctoral degrees had been earned by 37respondents (79% ) , whereas 6 (130/0) had earned mas-ter's degrees and 4 (90/0) had earned bachelor's degreesor "other." More than 750/0 of respondents (37; 79% )reported involvement in special education for 16 ormore years; none reported involvement for less than 3years.

Respondents indicated that their views of inclusionhad been influenced by experiences with students hav-ing a variety of disability labels. The most commonlyrepresented label was moderate-to-profound mental re-tardation (43; 910/0). All reported collaborating withschools and districts to help include students with mod-erate-to-profound disabilities.

Respondent Definitions of InclusionTo understand how respondents were thinking about

inclusive education when they generated their lists ofuseful practices, we briefly summarize the findings ofRyndak et al. (in press). Respondent definitions of in-clusion expressed seven broad themes. Most definitionsreflected that students with disabilities should be placedin natural typical settings (e.g., general education classin neighborhood school); that all students should betogether for instruction and learning; and that supportsand modifications should be provided within generaleducation to meet appropriate learner outcomes. Somerespondents identified two other characteristics of in-clusive placements: (a) belongingness, equal member-ship, acceptance, and being valued; and (b) provision ofcollaborative integrated services by education teams.Finally, a few incorporated into their definitions twosystemic issues: inclusion as a philosophy or belief sys-tem that pervades an educational system; and inclusionas the meshing of general and special education into aunified system.

Useful Practices for Inclusive EducationThe primary and prevalent themes within each of the

nine categories of useful practices are presented inTable 1. They are detailed below.

Promoting inclusive values. Twenty-seven partici-pants responded to this category. Their responses em-phasized procedures that are designed to help peoplereflect on and clarify their values; the role of leadershipin promoting positive values; and how inclusive prac-tices themselves can nurture the growth of inclusivevalues. There was a clear message that a grounding ininclusive values is an important support to ensure thatinclusive practices emerge as the staple within a school,and that this base of support requires efforts on a num-ber of different fronts. These fronts seem well repre-sented by six interrelated themes.

An especially strong theme, Clarify Values and Pro-

Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley 133

Table 1Number of Respondents, Identified Themes, and Percentage of Respondents Who Selected Empirical Research as a Source of

Information for Each Category

Category

Promoting InclusiveValues

Collaboration BetweenGeneral/SpecialEducators

Collaboration BetweenEducators and RelatedService Providers

Family Involvement

Choosing and PlanningWhat to Teach

Scheduling, Coordinating,and Delivering InclusiveServices Within theSchool

Assessing/ReportingStudent Progress onan Ongoing Basis

Instructional Strategies

Supporting Studentswith ChallengingBehavior

No.responses

27

26

15

11

30

15

11

14

19

EmpiricalThemes research

1. Clarify values and promote consensus 60%2. Create community in the classroom3. Provide positive examples4. Use appropriate inclusion practices5. Live inclusion day-to-day6. Provide support through leadership1. Create a unified school-wide culture 260/02. Equalize powers, roles, and responsibilities3. Meet general and special educator training needs4. Build relationships between general and special educators

1. Establish a common set of values and practices around inclusion 29%2. Reconfigure service provision3. Redefine related service provider's contribution4. Create a shared focus on educational outcomes1. Create broad roles for parent participation and control 55%2. Gather information from families when creating the educational plan3. Ensure two-way communication4. Assist families in making informed choices about placement5. Make the inclusion option happen6. Broaden our understanding of families1. Gather information across relevant informants, environments, and tasks 60%2. Select useful data-gathering and decision-making protocols3. Ensure knowledge sharing and service coordination1. Reconfigure service structures 400/02. Use a variety of nonintrusive adaptations

1. Use performance-based, authentic, in-context assessments 63%

1. Use systematic instruction methods 64 %2. Provide instruction in context3. Use methods that enhance social relationships and membership1. Use contextual modifications 74%2. Involve peers3. Use methods that focus on the function rather than the form

of the behavior

mote Consensus, stressed the need for open discussionsof values at the class, school, and community levels, andthe importance of encouraging teachers to discuss"their views of inclusion," such as "Why include?""Why not include?" and "What's hard about inclu-sion?" Moreover, respondents said schools not onlyneed to create and periodically revisit a mission state-ment that "addresses the value of educating and includ-ing all learners," but also to apply the mission in routinedecisions and "whenever problems/challenges emerge."In a related theme, Create Community in the Class-room, respondents cited practices that promote a class-room climate of interstudent appreciation, such as cre-ating valued roles for students, especially those withsignificant needs; having students "analyze and sharesimilarities and differences" between themselves andtheir classmates; teaching students to advocate for each

other; and embedding disability issues in the curricu-lum.

In Provide Positive Examples, responses stressed theneed for members of a school community to vicariouslyexperience the positive aspects of inclusion in order todevelop their own inclusive values. This can happenthrough visiting "successful programs"; listening to thestories and testimonials of parents, students, and teach-ers who have experienced inclusive practices; and hear-ing inspirational speakers who talk about "the benefitsof inclusion."

In two closely related themes, Use Appropriate In-clusion Practices and Live Inclusion Day-to-Day, thecommon motif was that inclusive values are nurturedwhen adults regularly have success, and experience sup-port from their peers, in their application of inclusivepractices. Use Appropriate Inclusion Practices stressed

134 Inclusive Practices

that practices known to be nonintrusive and to workwell with heterogeneous groups of learners (e.g., coop-erative groups, "low-profile" supports) must becomemore the rule than the exception in daily practice. LiveInclusion Day-to-Day emphasized that inclusion is sup-ported when collaborative activities occur regularly inthe school, for example, teacher-to-teacher observa-tions and sharing reflections; "teacher peer-coaching";building-level reviews of practices and revision of prac-tices that do not support learning and growth in allchildren; and "building-wide discussion groups to dis-cuss problems and solutions."

The final theme was Provide Support Through Lead-ership. Although the identified practices tended to bebroad ("ongoing and consistent administrative commit-ment"), participants stressed the important role admin-istrators play when they "walk their talk." They high-lighted the fact that administrators must also be part ofthe practices identified in the other five themes to pro-mote and sustain inclusive practices within schools.

Collaboration between general and special educa-tors. Twenty-six participants responded to this cat-egory. Although four distinct themes emerged, a com-mon motif was teaming, expressed as either a scheduledactivity (e.g., team planning time) or as a product of ateaming process (e.g., team-developed IEP).

The first theme, which echoed responses within the"promoting inclusive values" category, was Create aUnified School-Wide Culture, in which there is a "com-mon vision for all students accomplished by general andspecial educators jointly." This requires all educators tobuild "long-term relationships based on mutual respectand dialogue," demonstrate a "willingness to listen andmodify practices," and develop an "understanding ofand respect for others' areas of expertise." Responsesstressed the need for "leadership that values and mod-els collaborative methods in school interactions" andfacilitates collaboration among school personnel bymeeting their needs.

A second theme, Equalize Power, Roles, and Re-sponsibilities, addressed a number of broad systemicchange concerns and in-school practice issues. Thepractices within this theme often require rethinkinghow a school structures its services and how it operatesas a whole. However, if implemented, they would en-hance equity between general and special educators inpower, roles, and responsibilities. The specific practicesfell into four distinct areas: (1) school structures thatsupport equitable and effective collaboration, such asusing instructional models requiring educator collabo-ration and eliminating differences between special andregular educators in "salary, titles, administration, in-service opportunities"; (2) practices that support ateaming process in which team members: (a) retain, butshare, their expertise; (b) participate in both co-teaching and "non-directive" consultative opportuni-ties; and (c) engage in role reversal; (3) specific strate-

gies that could help a team work more cooperatively inaddressing student needs, including: (a) collaborativeproblem solving; (b) McGill Action Planning System(MAPS; Forest & Lusthaus, 1990); (c) mutually deter-mining goals for individual students in general educa-tion classes; and (d) joint planning, implementation,and evaluation of instruction; and (4) regularly sched-uled meetings and opportunities to plan together forinstructing all students and for developing accommoda-tions and modifications.

A third theme, Meet General and Special EducatorTraining Needs, emphasized that general and specialeducators traditionally have not been taught to worktogether. Training toward this end should focus onteam teaching, effective interpersonal communication,collaborative problem solving, consultation, efficientand effective meetings, sharing expertise through theuse of a common vocabulary, and role reversal. Thetraining must help educators acquire skills that facili-tate collaborative procedures for assessing student per-formance, developing meaningful IEPs, planning les-sons, developing accommodations and modifications,implementing instruction, and evaluating its effects.

Survey participants also focused on how and whentraining should occur. They supported restructuringpreservice teacher education and licensure to reduceprofessional role differentiation and categorical barri-ers and to prepare all teachers to collaborate, whilepreserving the development of specialized knowledgefor each team member. They discussed inservice train-ing activities based on needs assessments and shared bygeneral and special educators, preferably before inclu-sion, emphasizing collaboration and team-teachingskills.

The fourth theme was Build Relationships BetweenGeneral and Special Educators. It emphasized the needfor effective, clear, and honest communication, notingthat both professional and social opportunities could beused toward this end.

Collaboration between educators and related serviceproviders. Fifteen respondents recommended practicesthat often paralleled those in "Collaboration BetweenGeneral and Special Educators." They stressed theneed to dissolve the rigid boundaries between relatedservice providers and educators; to create consensusaround student goals and objectives; and to reframerelated services so they are integrated within, ratherthan isolated from, the educational activities of generaleducation. This category comprised four distinctive andcoherent themes.

Establish a Common Set of Values and PracticesAround Inclusion echoed earlier themes: a "sharedframework" of values and attitudes to support inclusivepractices; participation of "all educators and relatedservice personnel" in "all inservice opportunities (gen-eral education, special education, assessment, etc.)";

Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley 135

and people having "a common understanding of eachother's role, scope of practice," and "expertise."

Reconfigure Service Provision and Redefine the Re-lated Service Provider's Contribution echoed the servicerestructuring theme within the category of special andregular educator collaboration. Responses in Reconfig-ure Service Provision emphasized "integrated therapy"within general education settings and they stressedshared "planning time for the coordination of in-classservices." Redefine the Related Service Provider's Con-tribution reflected the need to reduce role differencesbetween educators and related service providers whileensuring that each has something unique to contribute.Several people suggested that individual contributionsshould be based more on skill strengths than on pro-fessional specializations.

Create a Shared Focus on Educational Outcomes de-tailed how changes in the relationship between relatedservices and other educational activities would be re-flected in students' goals and objectives. Participantsindicated that related service recommendations shouldbe subsumed within student goals that transcend disci-pline boundaries and that student goals and objectivesshould focus on achieving educational outcomes, suchas "standards for grade level."

Family involvement. Eleven respondents communi-cated a single motif: Families need to be meaningfullyand equitably involved in educational planning for theirchildren. Indeed, they need to contribute to missiondevelopment and daily operations of the school. Sixthemes constituted this category.

Create Broad Roles for Parent Participation and Con-trol is reminiscent of earlier reform and restructuringthemes. Some responses focused on expanding thefamily's role in relation to their own child (e.g., "buildhome[work] activities ...around [the] family's daily rou-tine-e.g., work on counting while setting the table";schedule planning conferences so parents meet with thegeneral and special education teachers together). Oth-ers focused on expanding the family's role in relation tothe whole school (e.g., having parents serve on "school-based management [site councils]" and having schoolsdevelop "family liaisons").

Gather Information From Families When Creating theEducational Plan reflected a more normative expecta-tion of the family's role. Responses stressed using datafrom family sources (e.g., home visits); using the MAPSprocess or similar tools for collaborative vision plan-ning with families; and considering family concerns, pri-orities, and knowledge when developing the IEP. Oneinnovative recommendation was for "fall parent con-ferences" for "all students" that focus on family con-cerns rather than on "student performance."

Ensure Two-way Communication also reflected amore traditional interpretation of family contributions.Although this theme included specific practices (e.g.,scheduling frequent meetings and setting up individu-

alized home/school communication notebooks), re-spondents also stressed treating parents as "essential"and "equal" contributors during planning.

Assist Families in Making Informed Choices AboutPlacement emphasized the importance of informingfamilies about different "class offerings" and their re-spective pros and cons and helping parents move be-yond their perceptions that "separate programs offermore specialized programs and provide greater care fortheir children." Further, districts should offer a "family/community inservice if inclusive services are just begin-ning." A closely related theme, Make the Inclusion Op-tion Happen, emphasized ensuring "that an inclusionplacement is as easy to obtain as a special day class orsegregated school placement," and that inclusive ser-vices embrace "quality education, related services, andsafety."

Broaden Our Understanding of Families stressed thatschools need to critically examine their own values andpractices concerning families, to expand their definitionand acceptance of what a family is, and to use a "sys-tems approach" with families.

Choosing and planning what to teach. Thirty respon-dents provided information related to three overallthemes, each reflecting a different facet of how the con-tent of instruction is defined, identified, and selected.Gather Information Across Relevant Informants, Envi-ronments, and Tasks included practices for assessingstudents and settings to help determine the focus ofinstruction. Responses first addressed gathering infor-mation from significant individuals in the lives of stu-dents (e.g., the student, family members, teachers,classmates) to identify goals for increasing their inde-pendence. Second, responses focused on gathering in-formation through ecological inventories to identify in-structional content relevant to a variety of present andfuture environments. Respondents emphasized that in-structional goals should be based on general educationcurriculum and activities, with accommodations andmodifications. Third, responses focused on gatheringinformation about a student's performance on specifictasks within relevant contexts, for example, observingthe student in classrooms and other settings to deter-mine performance levels and the adaptations needed.Across all three areas, practices overwhelmingly fo-cused on selecting relevant content from both the gen-eral education curriculum and the student's functionalneeds through inventories of content, contexts, andpeople. Practices also focused on blending instructionon the selected content within general education activi-ties. One respondent noted, an "alternative curricu-lum" and the use of "developmental assessments"should be avoided.

Select Useful Data Gathering and Decision-MakingProtocols focused on the need for instruments and pro-cesses to help teams make decisions about instructionalcontent. Some respondents identified processes such as

136 Inclusive Practices

Choosing Options and Accommodations for Children(COACH; Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 1998),MAPS (Forest & Lusthaus, 1990), PATH (Pearpoint,O'Brien, & Forest, 1993), and the Osborn-Parnes Cre-ative Problem Solving Method (Giangreco, Cloninger,Dennis, & Edelman, 1994). Others emphasized theneed for a format for prioritizing content, a decision-making process for blending content from general edu-cation and functional needs, and collaborative decisionmaking. Some also stressed processes for identifyingappropriate accommodations and modifications to cur-riculum content, materials, and instruction to ensurepartial participation in general education activitieswhile ensuring learning of appropriate outcomes.

Ensure Knowledge Sharing and Service Coordinationincluded responses that emphasized a shared under-standing of students and their visions among all teammembers; a common knowledge across disciplines ofgeneral education approaches, learning theories, andIEPs; and organizational and administrative support fordelivering instructional content from the IEP in generaleducation settings. By addressing the background pro-cesses necessary for content selection and instructionalplanning activities to flow smoothly, this theme echoedearlier ones that emphasized role sharing and collabo-ration across disciplines and with administrators.

In addition to these three themes, several respon-dents noted that groups of practices formed integratedwholes and that no single practice could stand alone.For example, one participant described a sequence inwhich the educational team identified the student'sfunctional skill needs, reviewed the grade level corecurriculum and district standards, then selected prioritygoals and objectives based on these two activities.Many respondents also noted that content and deliveryare closely intertwined; content and delivery should beorganized around the class schedule of the studentswithout disabilities, emphasizing partial participation ingeneral education routines.

Scheduling, coordinating, and delivering inclusiveservices within the school. Fifteen participants re-sponded to this category. Consistent with earlierthemes, the motifs that threaded their way through re-sponses were that effective scheduling, coordinating,and delivering inclusive services are predicated on re-conceptualizing how team members perform their rolesand on restructuring the system in which these roles areperformed. Two primary themes emerged.

The first was Reconfigure Service Structures. Re-sponses within this theme were grouped according totheir focus: reconfiguring service structures for theschool, for the team, or for instruction. School concernsincluded practices to restructure special education andrelated services to enact role changes that could facili-tate shared "ownership" of the students and collabora-tive teaming. This could include assigning special edu-cation teachers to a grade level, a team of general edu-

cators, or to specific interdisciplinary teams; assigningspecial education teachers to case loads of studentsacross disability categories; scheduling special educa-tion teachers and paraprofessionals according to theidentified needs of general educators; and developingprofessional skills that can move people away from tra-ditional segregated professional roles toward coteach-ing and collaboration.

In relation to reconfiguring service structures for theteam, respondents addressed scheduling practices, in-cluding placing students with IEPs all day in generaleducation, then using a matrix to determine when andwhere instruction and other services should be pro-vided; integrating individual instructional activities intothe general education teachers' lesson plan books; andcommunicating through channels other than formalmeetings. Responses also addressed strategies for ef-fectively scheduling the instructional activities of teammembers (e.g., block scheduling; coordinating theschedule for special educators and related service per-sonnel with the school's master schedule) and for mak-ing time for them to collaboratively plan instructionalactivities. Participants noted the importance of specialeducation and related services personnel followingthrough on commitments to their general educationteam members.

With regard to instruction, useful practices identifiedfor embedding specialized assessment and instructioninto general education activities and routines includedencouraging the use of discipline-free goals; using a ma-trix to infuse instruction of specific content into theclass schedule of peers without disabilities; partial par-ticipation; and instructing students with IEPs by incor-porating their instruction into existing general educa-tion teaching activities (e.g., cooperative learninggroups).

The second and final theme was Use a Variety ofNonintrusive Adaptations. This theme centered onstrategies for using accommodations and modificationsthat allow students to participate optimally with theirclassmates without disabilities. Responses included us-ing peer buddies, picture schedules, and adaptations formaking choices and communicating with others. It wasemphasized that accommodations and modificationsshould be compatible with other practices in generaleducation classes.

Assessing and reporting student progress on an on-going basis. Eleven respondents had a single theme:Use Performance-based, Authentic, In-Context Assess-ments. Respondents noted how this emphasis repre-sents "a conceptual shift from a norm-referenced com-parison with others to a process of documenting, reor-ganizing, and celebrating personal progress" andillustrates the "functional direct relationship between[environmental] demands, [student] needs, and [stu-dent] abilities, [so that the information is] meaningfulto team members."

Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley 137

Although both curriculum-based and criterion-referenced assessments were viewed as useful, therewas a clear emphasis on procedures that combine quali-tative and quantitative data. Specific procedures in-cluded portfolio assessment, work samples, class pro-jects, videotapes of student performance, anecdotal re-cords, interviews or verbal reports, and directobservation of functional behaviors across naturalisticsettings. Data-based instruction with direct daily mea-sures on criterion-referenced goals, resulting in fre-quency counts or interval data, was also considered use-ful. However, regardless of the procedure described,the emphasis was on collecting and using assessmentinformation that is authentic, reflects student perfor-mance in meaningful activities across settings, and ad-dresses social validation concerns.

Instructional strategies. Fourteen respondents iden-tified practices within three distinctive themes. First,Use Systematic Instruction Methods included practicesthat have become familiar to many special educatorsover the years and are often considered components of"systematic instruction." Responses generally empha-sized practices that rely more on instructional anteced-ents than on consequences, such as methods forprompting and systems for fading prompts (e.g., timedelay, increasing assistance). Other responses identifiedfeedback strategies, task analysis, and general case pro-gramming. Participants emphasized the proven effec-tiveness of these methods and their efficiency in usingeducational resources.

The second theme, Provide Instruction in Context,included practices that are especially consistent withearlier themes within the category, "scheduling, coor-dinating, and delivering inclusive services within theschool." These include naturalistic instruction, inciden-tal teaching, activity-based instruction, and using natu-ral opportunities. Respondents noted that such meth-ods are effective, use existing routines/stimuli, are effi-cient, promote generalization and maintenance, and donot interfere with ongoing classroom activities.

The third and final theme, Use Methods That En-hance Social Relationships and Membership, includedresponses emphasizing instructional practices that bothutilize and promote social relationships and member-ship. Practices included cooperative learning, socialskills instruction, peer-mediated instruction, and praisefor achievement by other students. One respondent be-lieved that peer-mediated instruction was "particularlyuseful" because it could promote skill acquisition in anycontent area while promoting social network buildingand friendships.

Supporting students with challenging behaviors.Nineteen respondents offered practices within threethemes; two blend well with earlier themes and one isunique to this category.

Use Contextual Modifications is consistent with ear-lier themes, most notably in "scheduling, coordinating,

and delivering inclusive services within the school" and"instructional strategies." Contextual modificationsviewed as useful for supporting students with challeng-ing behaviors included anticipating behaviors and ma-nipulating antecedents, providing an aide or assistant tohelp as needed, and reviewing and revising the stu-dent's schedule. One respondent stressed solving "be-havior issues within the general education setting"; thatis, not permitting an "alternative placement to even bea possibility."

Involve Peers is similar to a theme in the category,"instructional strategies." Useful practices includedpeer mediation; "discipline with dignity" in which thestudent with challenging behaviors and peers withoutdisabilities develop a shared responsibility; vision plan-ning; focusing on developing relationships as a preven-tive strategy; instructing peers without disabilities "onhow to respond to problem behavior"; and organizinginstructional groupings so that the student with chal-lenges can learn from positive peer modeling and assis-tance. Responses emphasized strategies that are usefulin addressing challenging behavior because they have apositive impact on teacher time and teach positive in-terdependence among peers without disabilities.

Use Methods That Focus on the Function RatherThan the Form of Behavior was an especially strongtheme. The most frequently cited practice was func-tional behavioral assessment or analysis, considered es-pecially useful in inclusive services because it promotesbehavior interventions that teach appropriate, alterna-tive behaviors that match the function of the problembehavior. Participants identified related practices suchas functional communication training, analysis of com-peting behaviors, teaching students to make choices,and gentle teaching. This theme reflected an approachto behavioral issues that favored increasing, rather thanlimiting, a student's access to relevant instructional en-vironments.

Primary Sources of Information AboutInclusive Practices

Personal experience yielded the highest mean per-centage (83%) with respect to the sources people iden-tified as primary in how they acquired knowledge aboutinclusive practices across categories. Figures for otherchoices were logic/values (69 % ) ; examples and storiesfrom others (660/0); nonresearch professional publica-tions (54 % ) ; presentations and workshops (53 % ) ; per-sonal research activity (53 %); empirical research(52% ) ; and other (180/0).

Reliance on empirical research across the nine cat-egories is shown in Table 1. A small percentage of re-spondents identified empirical research as a primaryinformation source for the categories "CollaborationBetween General and Special Educators" (260/0) and"Collaboration Between Educators and Related Ser-vice Providers" (29 % ) . In contrast, "Supporting Stu-

138 Inclusive Practices

dents With Challenging Behaviors" (74% ) , "Instruc-tional Strategies" (64 % ) , and "Assessing and Report-ing Student Progress on an Ongoing Basis" (63 % )received notably higher percentages.

Discussion

We examined the opinions of experts in the field ofmoderate to severe disabilities on useful practices forinclusive education, exploring themes within nine cat-egories. In combination with other research (Billingsley& Kelley, 1994; Coots et aI., 1998; Wolery et aI., 1995),our findings offer direction for developing a researchbase to address the range of practices needed to estab-lish inclusive education in today's schools.

At the same time, limitations that impact the robust-ness and generality of our findings call for reserve inextending our results to other situations and stronglysuggest the need for additional research that can ex-pand and qualify our findings. First, the number andpercentage of persons responding to our questionnairewere relatively small, raising questions about the rep-resentativeness of our sample and the views of the ex-perts who did not respond. Second, our participantswere mostly university-affiliated professionals, perhapsbecause academics tend to write articles for the journalsthat we targeted. A broader sample of people with ex-perience in inclusive education (e.g., family members,students, and teachers) might yield different results. Fi-nally, future research can tell us if the viewpoints re-ported here are shared by experts in other disabilityareas (e.g., deafness, visual disabilities, or mild disabili-ties).

Three pervasive, overarching motifs consistentlyfound expression as various themes emerged. These arecritically important for future research on inclusiveeducation. First, special educators must increasingly seethemselves as service providers aligned with generaleducation rather than exclusively in relation to groupsof students with specific disabilities. Whether the prac-tices are those of collaborative IEP development, cote-aching and supporting students in general educationclasses, or redefining caseload boundaries for "sharedownership," the message is the same: If inclusive edu-cation is to be realized, special educators must rethinkand possibly discard many traditional practices (e.g.,relegating students to programs that are based on al-ternative curricula or deficit-driven theories of learn-ing; offering special classes in math or life skills thattake the place of general education offerings; runningparallel systems for professional growth and develop-ment; and being held accountable to significantly dif-ferent teaching expectations compared with their gen-eral education counterparts).

This shift in perspective has implications for both theIEP team and general educators. With respect to theIEP team, it is hard to imagine an inclusive effort being

functionally sustained by an IEP team in which generaleducation is represented solely by a single invited gen-eral education teacher. A team supporting inclusiveeducation over the long haul may need to express lessallegiance to special education relationships and moreto fusing expertise with that of the larger educationalcommunity. This may require changing the compositionof IEP teams so that there is more authentic represen-tation of general education interests. In turn, generaleducators have issues about curriculum relevance forstudents with moderate to severe disabilities, and aboutassuming ownership for these students' learning. In thisstudy, we saw evidence that inclusive practices requirethat general educators recognize that what they have tooffer is relevant to all students if properly accommo-dated and modified. Also, students should not besingled out as "not belonging to me" simply becausethey happen to be in a wheelchair, have problems withabstract concepts, or have difficulty overtly demon-strating learning.

Of course, what frightens some educators, and somefamilies, is not knowing what will happen to specialeducation if we actually achieve the foregoing objec-tives: How will special educators maintain individual-ization when special education is held to expectationsassociated with the general education curriculum? Willspecial educators be able to effectively lobby for therights of their students when they no longer have soleresponsibility for meeting their needs? Will generaleducators be expected to assume inordinate responsi-bility for accommodations and modifications as legisla-tors mistakenly interpret special education as duplicateservices? Even with such uncertainties, we must con-tinue to secure the rights of persons with disabilities tohave access to, and participate in, the general educationexperiences of their peers without disabilities.

Second, implementaion of many useful inclusivepractices depends on broad and significant changes inhow special educators and related service providers de-liver services. Our field has known for some time thatinclusive education requires alterations in how instruc-tional outcomes are designated and how services aredelivered. However, the absolute scale of reform thatmay be required for useful practices (e.g., collabora-tively planning individual student outcomes using thegeneral education curriculum, integrating therapiesinto general education classes, having shared planningtime) to become the rule rather than the exceptiongives us a perspective on the magnitude of this issue.Special educators and related service providers find itdifficult to deliver inclusive services to students whenthey must also serve the "exceptions," whether theseexceptions reflect unwilling or improperly preparedteachers, parental wishes, or district policies mandatingthe provision of the full "continuum of services."

In many ways, the barriers faced when making thenecessary large-scale reforms in practice fall squarely

Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley 139

on the shoulders of the so-called continuum of services.As the model of service provision, it opens the way forpervasive segregation because it helps legitimize thegrouping of children and youth according to ability lev-els and disability categories (Kunc, 1992; Wieck &Strully, 1990). Still, the continuum remains a practicethat is very much alive and supported in many presentinterpretations of the law (Yell, 1995). Hence, if inclu-sive education is to make significant inroads in a par-ticular community, it may do so only because a criticalmass of stakeholders collectively enacts and permits thereforms needed to reshape the expectations and rolesof educational service providers.

Third, consistent with McDonnell's report (1998),special education's instructional methodologies (e.g.,one-to-one instruction, functional behavioral assess-ment) must be evaluated within the context of generaleducation practice. In other words, whether consideringa study's research findings or a teacher's routine prac-tices, the utility of a specialized technique must beestablished within the instructional context of the gen-eral education classroom. This challenges educatorsand researchers alike to view these techniques, not asisolated teaching practices, but as potentially useful ad-juncts to the educational methodologies already pre-sent within general education. Researchers who areused to examining techniques while holding constantother aspects of instruction may be challenged: Sud-denly, the learning activities of the general educationclassroom become part of the "context" in which suchtechniques must be assessed. The implications of re-search go from "here is a technique that works" to"here is a technique that is either helpful or not helpfuldepending on the learning activities already being pro-vided in the general education class." At the same time,special educators must be at the table to discuss generaleducation restructuring, so that they can help developreceptive climates for applying proven special educa-tion practices to benefit all students.

We were interested in the sources that the expertsused. Given the relative newness of inclusive education,these sources could extend well beyond the existingempirical research base. Generally, that was the case:respondents were much more likely to identify "per-sonal experience," and sources like "logic/values" thanthey were to identify "empirical research" as the basisfor their wisdom. Empirical research was more oftencited as a source in "Supporting Students With Chal-lenging Behaviors," "Assessing and Reporting StudentProgress on an Ongoing Basis," and " InstructionalStrategies," than in other categories (e.g., "Collabora-tion Between General and Special Educators"). Thesefindings have an intuitive appeal because the researchbase in these areas has a long history of development.On the other hand, these findings could be artifacts ofthe way respondents selected categories when theycompleted the questionnaire. For example, research-

minded people may have chosen categories such as"Supporting Students With Challenging Behaviors"and practice-oriented persons may have chosen catego-ries such as "Collaboration Between General and Spe-cial Educators." We can safely conclude that more re-search is needed to establish empirical foundations forpractice but not for determining whether some catego-ries of practice need more empirical studies than oth-ers.

In sum, our results offer a rich, albeit preliminary,description of the range of useful practices that consti-tute our present knowledge within inclusive education.A critical examination of these findings can offer re-searchers and practitioners an overview of what inclu-sive education must look like to be sustained acrosstime and within resistant political and social environ-ments. Many of the critical practices depend on signifi-cant changes in how general educators, special educa-tors, and related services providers interpret their rolesand responsibilities. They require reform efforts that flyagainst the grain of much that has preceded us. At thesame time, we believe that the only ethical choice is toembrace this path, even if its goals will not be reachedon a large scale in the foreseeable future.

ReferencesBennett, T., Lee, H., & Lueke, B. (1998). Expectations and

concerns: What mothers and fathers say about inclusion.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Devel-opmental Disabilities, 33, 108-122.

Billingsley, F., & Kelley, B. (1994). An examination of theacceptability of instructional practices for students with se-vere disabilities in general education settings. Journal of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 75-83.

Brinker, R. P., & Thorpe, M. E. (1984). Integration of severelyhandicapped students and the proportion of IEP objectivesachieved. Exceptional Children, 51, 168-175.

Brinker, R. P., & Thorpe, M. E. (1986). Features of integratededucational ecologies that predict social behavior amongseverely mentally retarded and nonretarded students.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 91, 150-159.

Buswell, B. E., Schaffner, C. B., & Seyler, A. B. (Ed.). (1999).Opening doors: Connecting students to curriculum, class-mates, and learning (2nd ed.). Colorado Springs: PEAK.

Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. A. (1980). The efficacy of specialversus regular class placement for exceptional children: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 296-309.

Coots, J. J., Bishop, K. D., & Grenot-Scheyer, M. (1998). Sup-porting elementary age students with significant disabilitiesin general education classrooms: Personal perspectives oninclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation andDevelopmental Disabilities, 33, 317-330.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The totaldesign method. New York: Wiley.

Downing, J. E. (1996). Including students with severe and mul-tiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies forteachers. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Erwin, E. J., & Soodak, L. C. (1995). I never knew I couldstand up to the system: Families' perspectives on pursuinginclusive education. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 20, 136-146.

Fisher, D., Pumpian, I., & Sax, C. (1998). High school students'attitudes about and recommendations for their peers with

140 Inclusive Practices

significant disabilities. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 23, 272-282.

Forest, M., & Lusthaus, E. (1990). Everyone belongs with theMAPS Action Planning System. Teaching Exceptional Chil-dren, 22(2), 32-35.

Gallagher, J. J. (1997, July). Keynote address. OSEP/JohnsHopkins University National Symposium on LeadershipTraining in Special Education, Washington, DC.

Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., Dennis, R. E., & Edelman,S. W. (1994). Problem-solving methods to facilitate inclusiveeducation. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa, & A. I. Nevin(eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practicalguide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 321-346).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V. S. (1998).Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children: Aguide to educational planning for students with disabilities(2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hamre-Nietupski, S., Hendrickson, J., Nietupski, J., & Sasso,G. (1993). Perceptions of teachers of students with moder-ate, severe, and profound disabilities on facilitating friend-ships with nondisabled peers. Education and Training inMental Retardation, 28, 111-127.

Hollowood, T. M., Salisbury, C. L., Rainforth, B., & Palom-baro, M. M. (1995). Use of instructional time in classroomsserving students with and without severe disabilities. Excep-tional Children, 61, 242-253.

Hunt, P., & Farron-Davis, F. (1992). A preliminary investiga-tion of IEP quality and content associated with placement ingeneral education versus special education classes. Journalof the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17,247-253.

Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz,L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of studentswith severe disabilities in general education versus specialclasses. Journal of the Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 19, 200-214.

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educa-tional programs, practices, and outcomes for students withsevere disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.

Jorgensen, C. M. (Ed.). (1998). Restructuring high schools forall students: Taking inclusion to the next level . Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Kunc, N. (1992). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslow'shierarchy of needs. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stain-back, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring andeffective schools: An administrative guide to creating hetero-geneous schools (pp. 25-39). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Logan, K. R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instruc-tional context, teacher behavior, and engaged behavior forstudents with severe disabilities in general education andself-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of the Asso-ciation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 16-27.

Logan, K. R., & Malone, D. M. (1998). Instructional contextsfor students with moderate, severe, and profound intellec-tual disabilities in general education elementary classrooms.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Devel-opmental Disabilities, 33, 62-75.

McDonnell, J. (1998). Instruction for students with severe dis-abilities in general education settings. Education and Train-ing in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,33, 199-215.

McLeskey, J., Henry, D., & Hodges, D. (1998). Inclusion:Where is it happening. Teaching Exceptional Children,31(1),4-10.

Moberg, S., Zumberg, M., & Reinmaa, A. (1997). Inclusiveeducation as perceived by prospective special educationteachers in Estonia, Finland, and the United States. Journal

of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22,49-55.

Palmer, D. S., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., & Widaman, K. (1998).Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their childrenwith significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children,64, 271-282.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evalu-ation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearpoint, J., O'Brien, J., & Forest, M. (1993). PATH: Aworkbook for planning positive possible futures . Toronto:Inclusion Press.

Peck, C., Schwartz, I., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., Billingsley, F., &White, O. (1996, November). Inclusive education researchproject: A follow-along study of outcomes for students withmoderate and severe disabilities. Annual conference of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, New Or-leans, LO.

Peck, C. A., Donaldson, J., & Pezzoli, M. (1990). Some ben-efits nonhandicapped adolescents perceive for themselvesfrom their social relationships with peers who have severehandicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Se-vere Handicaps, 15, 241-249.

Ryndak, D., & Alper, S. (1996). Curriculum content for stu-dents with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive set-tings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ryndak, D. L., Bemus, J., McGinnes, S., & Brown, P. (2000).Yes, I want my child included! What have other parents doneto advocate for their children's inclusion. Manuscript submit-ted for publication.

Ryndak, D. L., Brown, S., Bemus, J., Brown, P., & McGinnes,S. (2000). Following in the footsteps of others: Parents' ex-periences as their children follow into inclusive settings.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. R., & Morrison,A. P. (1995). Parents' perceptions after inclusion of theirchildren with moderate or severe disabilities. Journal ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 147-157.

Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Morrison, A. P., & Williams, L.J. (1996). Parents' perceptions of educational settings andservices for children with moderate or severe disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 17, 106-118.

Ryndak, D. L., Jackson., L. B., & Billingsley, F. (in press).Defining school inclusion for students with moderate to se-vere disabilities: What do experts say?

Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P., & Sommerstein, L. (1999).Literacy before and after inclusion in general education set-tings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 24, 5-22.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world: Apractical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroomcommunities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Siegel-Causey, E., & Allinder, R. M. (1998). Using alternativeassessment for students with severe disabilities: Alignmentwith best practices. Education and Training in Mental Re-tardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 168-178.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitativeresearch methods: The search for meanings. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Snyder, E. D., & Caldwell, N. K.(1996). Teachers' perceptions of the supports critical to thesuccess of inclusion programs. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 9-21.

Wieck, C., & Strully, J. L. (1990). What's wrong with the con-tinuum? A metaphorical analysis. In L. H. Meyer, C. A.Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives ofpeoplewith severe disabilities (pp. 229-234). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley 141

Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., &Lisowski, L. (1995). Experienced teachers' perceptions ofresources and supports for inclusion. Education and Train-ing in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,30, 15-26.

Yell, M. L. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion,and students with disabilities: A legal analysis. Journal ofSpecial Education, 28, 389-404.

York-Barr, J. (Ed.). (1996). Creating inclusive schools andcommunities: A staff development series for general and spe-cial educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Article received: October 12, 1999Final acceptance: June 15, 2000Editor in charge: Fredda Brown