Inclusive Urban Schools - Softcover

Douglas Fisher, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the College of Education, Department of Teacher Education, at San Diego State University, where he teaches classes in English language development and literacy. His background includes adolescent literacy and instructional strategies for diverse student needs. He often presents at local, state, and national conferences and has published numerous articles on reading/literacy, differentiated instruction, accommodations, and curriculum development. He serves as Director of Professional Development for the City Heights Educational Collaborative in San Diego, California.

Nancy Frey, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the College of Education, Department of Teacher Education, at San Diego State University, where she teaches classes in literacy and differentiated instruction. Her background includes early literacy, writing instruction, and instructional strategies for diverse learners. She is the author of numerous books and articles on curriculum development and modification and on reading/literacy. She serves as Professional Development Schools Coordinator for the City Heights Educational Collaborative in San Diego, California.

Excerpted from chapter 1 of Inclusive Urban Schools, edited by Douglas Fisher, Ph.D., & Nancy Frey, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2003 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

Urban Education and Inclusive Schools: An Introduction

Inclusion is a part of the very culture of a school or school district and defines how students, teachers, administrators and others view the potential of children. Hence, inclusion has implications for how schools are organized and restructured, the curriculum, instruction, teacher training, and the types of materials and instructional technology used in the school. In fact, many schools have become inclusive schools when they restructured under current school reform efforts. (Roach, Ashcroft, Stamp, & Kysilko, 1995, p. 7)

The underlying value of inclusive education is that all children should be welcomed members of the classroom, school, and larger community. Certainly a great deal of research has been done on supporting individual students with disabilities in general education classes (e.g., Fisher & Ryndak, 2001; McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998). This substantial database suggests that it is more than possible to provide access for students with disabilities to the best available educational practice and to demonstrate positive student achievement in inclusive environments (Kennedy & Itkonen, 1994; McLeskey & Waldron, 2000).

Unfortunately, most service delivery models have failed to make effective and inclusive practices readily available and accessible to most students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). After decades of specific federal support through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), only 27% of all students receiving special education services between 1996 and 1998 graduated with a diploma, compared with 75% of students without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Much of this is due to the alarming dropout rates seen among students with individualized education programs (IEPs). Life beyond high school is even less hopeful. According to the National Longitudinal Transition Study (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, Hebbeler, & Newman, 1993), only 20% of youth with disabilities are independent in the domains of work, residential activities, and social activities 3–5 years out of school. Schools are being held accountable not only for the achievement of students with disabilities, but also for the achievement of typical students.

Data on student achievement underscore the failure to make best and emerging educational practices available to all youth (Haycock, 2001). This impact is most significant in large urban communities. Specifically, urban districts have average student dropout rates of more than 40%, and more than 70% of urban studentsread, write, and compute below grade level (Haycock, 2001).

Student achievement among urban youth with and without disabilities needs to become a national priority. Focusing on the achievement of all urban youth is logical and justified, as many youth with disabilities who are urban residents are also socioeconomically, culturally, and linguistically diverse (Bondy & Ross, 1998; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999). Educational reform is critically important, but only if it is designed and evaluated in terms of its impact on student achievement (Langer, 2001). A great deal is known about policies and practices that are positively linked to student achievement, particularly for students with disabilities in inclusive environments. The literature substantiates, for example, the importance of active parent–school partnerships (Schaffner & Buswell, 1995), challenging and relevant curricula (Fisher, Sax, & Pumpian, 1999), individualized supports and accommodations (Fisher & Frey, 2001), positive behavior supports and strategies (Koegel, Koegel, & Dunlap, 1996), peer interactions (Cushing & Kennedy, 1997), transition planning (Sax & Thoma, 2002), and access to the full range of programs and supports available to children without disabilities (Meyer, Park, Grenot-Scheyer, Schwartz, & Harry, 1998).

Tremendous parallels exist between the problems and solutions in reforming education within urban environments and those in promoting effective inclusive education. Because a large percentage of students with disabilities are educated in urban environments, these problems and solutions cannot and should not be viewed separately; unfortunately, they are. Specific reform initiatives, and individuals involved in implementing these reforms, are too often fragmented within and across site, district, state, and national levels.

To many people, the problems and needs of urban America seem insurmountable. It is easy to conjure images of massive poverty, dilapidated private and public structures, crime, vandalism, drug and alcohol problems, child abuse and neglect, and gang fights. Urban and suburban housing and employment patterns continue to result in ethnic and racial segregation and urban unemployment. African American urban males are more likely to die of gunshot wounds than from any other cause (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001). For many, these urban realities become correlated with the facts that more than 75% of urban youth are not Caucasian, that more than 325 languages are spoken in these multiethnic communities, that 19.7% of urban children are English language learners, and that enormous disparity exists in the educational achievement curves of urban youth (Council of the Great City Schools, 2001; Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 1998; .S. Census Bureau). To people who presume causal relationships in these correlations, urban educational reform appears pointless.

People who draw such conclusions often move away from urban areas, vote for private school voucher initiatives, give up, and blame the victims. Other people, however, are careful to look for ways of tapping the strength and resilience that exist in these urban environments. They know that children cannot be held accountable for their educational failures when little public equity exists, especially when factors such as the size, age, condition, and resources of school buildings; the amount of per-student spending; and the degree of tracking are all negatively represented in the inner cities. The fact that many urban children show no marked differences from others when they enter school but increasingly fail in comparison after each year of attendance (Feldman, 2001) turns the attention to school and community structures (i.e., policies and practices) and away from a pessimistic deficit view of and expectations for urban children. People who believe that educational reform is possible work hard to bring resources to ideas, ideas to actions, and actions to outcomes. Whether they are involved in building new schools from the ground up with widespread community partnerships or in aggressively challenging traditional tracking, testing, curriculum, or pedagogy, they demonstrate that change is possible. The reforms that seem most successful in urban environments have a grass roots means of engaging and empowering parents and members of the community to partner with administrators, teachers, and students.

Similar to the challenges of urban education in general, the problems and needs of children with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, may seem insurmountable. Obvious physical disabilities, adaptive devices and equipment (e.g., gastrointestinal tubes), behavioral disruptions, and unusual verbalizations are outside the realm of experience and understanding of many people. These realities become correlated with the fact that educating children with disabilities is expensive and challenging. To people who conclude that disability is the cause of poor educational achievement, special education and including children with disabilities in general education classrooms appears to be pointless and counterproductive. People who draw such conclusions often question why teachers' time and resources are spent on these children at the expense of "normal kids who could really learn something."

Other people, however, are careful to look for ways of tapping the strength and resilience of these children and their families. They know that children cannot be held accountable for their educational failures because with effective services and supports, all children, including those with severe disabilities, can function and contribute across a wide range of educational, employment, home, and social endeavors. The failure to establish effective service delivery models and implement effective and emerging best practices is a public decision that becomes blurred when children are pitied and their parents and advocates are devalued. People who believe inclusive education is possible work hard to bring resources to ideas, ideas to actions, and actions to outcomes. They, too, are involved in building new schools from the ground up; establishing new community partnerships; and aggressively challenging current placement, testing, curriculum, and pedagogy, thus demonstrating that change is possible. Their reforms seem to be most successful in environments where administrative leadership exists, general and special educators are partners in curriculum design and instruction, and parents and other community members are involved and empowered in the life of the school. These reforms seem to be most pervasive and best sustained when special education reform and the inclusion of students with disabilities are solidly based in general education reform efforts at all levels of educational policy and practice.

For inclusive urban schools to be successful, several changes must occur. First, the traditional paradigm for explaining student achievement must be challenged. Too often, students in urban communities — especially students with disabilities in urban communities — are not expected to achieve, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, achievement and school structures that facilitate achievement must be the focus.

Second, ways to bring the best educational research into urban schools and classrooms must be created. For example, as Briggs and Edmonds (Chapter 4) note, there is considerable evidence regarding effective literacy instruction for students with and without disabilities. The challenge is to ensure that teachers in urban schools have access to that research and are supported in implementing its findings with all the students in their classrooms.

Third, social and health services offered within the school must be coordinated with the educational program offered. Many students in urban schools require related services such as health care, dental care, and social supports. Too often, these services are not coordinated with the educational program, which leads to fractured and duplicated services that are costly and inefficient.

Fourth, large urban schools must be personalized. Far too many students attend the urban school campus without knowing even one adult well. Not only are these students at higher risk for dropping out but also their achievement often suffers in these hostile environments (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Ort, 2002).

Fifth, it must be ensured that assessment and placement practices do not result in de facto segregation into special education programs. In too many school systems, African American and Hispanic/Latino students (especially males) are overidentified for special education services (Meyer & Patton, 2001; Patton, 1998; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 2001). Predictably, these students do not have access to general education classrooms. Rather, they are segregated from their peers who have not been identified as needing such services. Along these lines, it must be remembered that overidentification can occur as a by product of increased school accountability and state assessment systems (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1993).

Finally, no discussion of urban schools is complete without a discussion of school safety. It goes without saying that this is a priority in any school. Students should feel safe — and actually be safe — at school. Students also need to feel that they are part of a learning community. It has become apparent that too often, violent students are isolated, ostracized, and marginalized by both peers and teachers (Garbarino & DeLara, 2002).

The challenges of urban education and inclusive schooling overlap considerably. By coordinating the efforts of educators and the community on increasing achievement, access to meaningful instruction, and safe environments, success can take place on both fronts. Researching and reporting these efforts creates a spread of effect that occurs across additional schools. This book has been written with this effect in mind.

OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK

Inclusive Urban Schools focuses on urban schools in which inclusive education has become part of the overall reform effort. The book contains examples of success and stories of ongoing challenges, as both are instructive for change agents who want to push the special education service delivery system further. In addition, commentaries from prominent scholars follow each chapter; these extend the implications from one school district to many. In reading this book, we encourage the reader to consider several questions. These guiding questions are not easily answered, but they are important and will likely be the focus of significant discussion as IDEA enters its fourth decade of defining special education for students with disabilities.

Is a common core of knowledge about effective instructional practices shared by inclusive educators and urban educators?

How can supports and services for all students be provided in inclusive environments?

How can related services be coordinated, and how can these services be integrated into the general education classroom?

Given the diversity in urban schools, how do schools create effective environments that support the diverse learning needs of students?

Is disability part of the human experience like race, gender, and culture? If so, how do and should schools respond?

What should schools do when the majority of their students live in poverty?

What are effective school and district change models and initiatives?

How can individuals create change if outdated models drive the system?

What changes in referral and assessment systems are needed to ensure that students receive the necessary assistance to be successful?

What should the special education system be accountable for — process, product, or both?

How have lawsuits helped or hindered special education reform?

What new roles and responsibilities do special educators, general educators, family members, and administrators need to assume in inclusive urban schools?

What role should the district office or state department of education play in promoting inclusive schooling practices?

And, finally, the essential question that frames the work of ...