Including students with intellectual disabilities in the general education classroom

1. Including Students with Intellectual Disabilities in the General Education Classroom
ESP 717a
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
August 2013
Janet Van Heck

2. 2
In examining the growing topic of including students with intellectual disabilities in the
general education environment, one may look at several areas of investigation. First, the laws
that govern special education practice in the U.S. should be focused on. Next, access to the
general education curriculum may be discussed. Then, behavior modifications, specifically
chained reactions, for successful inclusion may be examined. The impact social skills
interactions may have on the overall performance in school may be looked at. Also important in
the discussion is teachers’ opinions on the subject, which often reveals a need for sufficient
support staff. Finally, student and parental attitudes on inclusion should also be examined.
Legal Aspects
Why should students with intellectual disability be included in the general education
environment? The main reason is that it is the law. Beginning with PL 94-142 , the Education
for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975, students were by law to be included in the
least restrictive environment. If a student is capable of attending a class with general education
students, then that student should be included in the general education environment. Subsequent
laws also reinforced this notion: IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) of 1997 and
IDEA 2004, which was the reauthorization of the original IDEA law. Students with intellectual
disability should be included because it is the right thing to do. They deserve to have exposure
to general education curriculum and more importantly interaction with their age appropriate
peers. These interactions will help them adjust to adult life with people who do not have
disabilities. IDEA 2004 requires that the educational programs of all students receiving special
education services, including students with severe disabilities, identify supplementary aids and
services to ensure student involvement with and progress in the general education curriculum
(Smith, 2007).

3. 3
Access to the General Education Curriculum
Promoting student access to the general education curriculum not only seems like the
right thing to do but has also become an expectation of federal law governing education services
for students with disabilities (Lee, Soukup, Little, & Wehmeyer, 2009). Education for students
with more severe disabilities has traditionally focused on functional skills, but recent changes in
the approach to educating them have included an emphasis on student involvement with and
progress in core academic content areas. Making the general academic curriculum more
accessible might include making curriculum modifications such as curriculum adaptations and
curriculum augmentations or modifications to the physical structure or the classroom.
Additionally, there may be modifications to classroom ecological variables, access to educational
and assistive technology, assessment and task accommodations, and the availability of
paraeducators or peer supports (Lee et al, 2009).
Other considerations should be taken into mind such as the fact that access to general
education content can be achieved by using technology to develop instructional materials based
on the principles of universal design as well as by pedagogical means, including effective
instructional strategies and curriculum modifications. Curriculum modifications, such as graphic
organizers, have been shown as effective in meeting the unique learning needs of students with
disabilities in the general education classroom. In addition to effective pedagogy to meet the
individual needs of students with disabilities, classroom ecological and setting factors are
important to enhance access to the general education curriculum (Lee et al, 2009).
Another factor influencing student comprehension of the curriculum is student-teacher
interactions and other student and teacher variables. Observational methodologies based upon

4. 4
ecobehavioral assessment have been widely used to investigate classroom setting, student and
teacher variables in typical classroom settings. Ecobehavioral assessment is designed to reveal
sequential and concurrent interrelationships between environmental stimuli and a child’s
response. It has been used to investigate student engagement time, instructional strategies, and
context factors in group comparison studies for a variety of situations, including observing the
same participants in different educational settings. Such studies show a well-established link
between student achievement and time spent in academic engagement and instructional factors
(Lee, et al, 2009).
In another study, Logan and Malone (1998) found that students who were provided
academic rather than functional activities in the general education environment, student
engagement rates showed very positive outcomes. They found that effects associated with the
level of physical or intellectual disability may affect the type and amount of support students
with moderate, severe, and/or profound disabilities need in a general education classroom. The
amount of exposure the general education curriculum students receive is directly related to the
level of their disability. Students with more profound disabilities required more extensive
modifications than those with less severe disabilities. Nevertheless, students were more engaged
with the academic curriculum than they had been with the functional curriculum. Therefore, for
example, students may be more engaged in learning mathematics (the academic curriculum) than
in learning about coins (the functional curriculum) (Logan & Malone, 1998).
Thus, the results of this study verified what has been found throughout the modern
literature on this subject. Students responded more positively to the academic curriculum. For
example, students were provided a comprehensive array of instructional activities with a greater
proportion of instruction provided through academic rather than functional activities.

5. 5
Instructional contexts associated with successful academic criterion-referenced outcomes were
provided in general education classrooms. (Logan & Malone, 1998).
Behavior Modifcation for Successful Inclusion
In 2008, over 58% of students with disabilities were spending the majority of their school
days in inclusive general education settings. There is also increased pressure brought about
through No Child Left Behind to ensure all students access and demonstrate progress in the
general education curriculum. With this comes a need for effective and efficient instructional
procedures that can be used to provide structured and data-driven instruction in inclusive settings
and provide access to functional and core curriculum for students with significant cognitive
disabilities (James, Walker, Utley and Maughan, 2012).
One such effective method is embedded instruction, or structured instruction that is
distributed across naturally occurring opportunities in the general education classroom.
Embedded constant time delay instruction was delivered by peer tutors to teach students with
significant cognitive disabilities in general education settings content related to the general
education class the students with significant cognitive disabilities were enrolled in. The study
found that all of the students with disabilities reached criterion on their instructional targets that
social validity interviews found that both the peer tutors and the general education teachers felt
the instructional procedures were effective in promoting student learning and that the procedures
implemented in the general education setting had benefits for both the students with disabilities
and the student peer tutors without disabilities (James et al, 2012). Therefore, the method was
shown to be an effective means to modify behaviors for success in the inclusive environment.

6. 6
This behavior modification method for including students in the general education
setting, known as embedded instruction, is characterized by a number of critical features. First,
the learning outcomes for each student are clearly defined, including goals and criterion for
judging the effectiveness of the intervention. Next, embedded instruction is designed to
accommodate the presence or absence of naturally occurring opportunities for instruction during
the activities and routines of the inclusive setting. Also, embedded instructional trials are
distributed within or across the typical routines or activities in the general education classroom.
The number and approximate timing for the delivery of embedded instructional trials is planned.
The embedded instruction uses empirically validated instructional procedures. Finally, the
instructional decisions must be directly linked to student performance data (James et al, 2012).
Chained tasks help students learn to function in the general education environment. They
are skills that require the student to complete two or more separate sequential steps before the
response is complete. Students engage in hundreds of behavioral chains every school day,
ranging rom tying their shoes in the morning, to social interactions with peers and adults, to
completing word problems in math classes. Traditionally, academic behavioral chains have been
taught in separate special education settings or as a parallel instruction in the general education
setting. Validation of the effectiveness of the procedures to teach behavioral chains to students
with disabilities has yet to be seen in the literature. These behavior chains are meant to help
them achieve meaningful school and life outcomes. In inclusive settings, embedded instructional
procedures provide an instructional framework for the highly controlled and systematic teaching
procedures needed to teach behavior in the general education setting (James et al, 2012).

7. 7
Social Skills Instruction
Students may have access to the general education curriculum and learn a chained
behavior modification system, but these are useless without the consideration of social skills
instruction which will ease in communication and interaction with general education peers.
Effective social skills are critical to successful school performance, including classroom
participation, academic engagement, and social interaction. However, these skills often elude
students with intellectual disabilities and autism. Students with intellectual disabilities or autism
characteristically have limited skills to interact effectively with teachers and peers and display
difficulty in responding appropriately to social stimuli. Social skills limitations are made worse
at the high school level, where conversation with teachers and peers becomes the primary
medium for social interaction and classroom participation and expectations for appropriate
communication in order to gain social acceptance (Hughes, Golas, Cosgriff, Brigham, Edwards
& Cash, 2011).
The impact of peer interactions on the lives of adolescents is substantial. Within the
context of peer relationships, adolescents practice and refine social skills; access support
systems, shared activities, and companionship; and learn peer norms and values. Additionally,
adolescents spend proportionately more of their time with their peers as they get older in
intensifying the influence of peer interaction on adolescent development. A growing body of
research has documented similar benefits for adolescents with intellectual disabilities.
Particularly, interaction with general education peers may play a role in academic, functional,
and social skill development, as well as contribute to increased social competence, attainment of
educational goals, friendship development, and enhanced quality of life. Despite these potential
benefits, interaction among middle and high school students with intellectual disabilities and

8. 8
their general education peers occurs infrequently. Descriptive studies examining peer interaction
at the secondary level confirm that few interactions between students with disabilities and their
general education peers typically occur apart from intentional intervention efforts. In light of
these findings, it is important to consider factors that may contribute to this lack of social
interaction (Carter & Hughes, 2005).
The extent to which adolescents interact with their peers may be influenced by the social
and related skills students possess and the environmental contexts within which students spend
their school day. For students with intellectual disabilities, these two factors may be particularly
salient, contributing to limited social interaction with their peers without disabilities. Although
considerable diversity exists among individuals sharing the label of intellectual disabilities,
substantial limitations in social interaction skills are widely prevalent. Specifically, students
with intellectual disabilities may experience difficulty adequately performing an array of
important social skills, including engaging in reciprocal interactions, elaborating social
exchanges, adapting to novel social circumstances, and discerning and interpreting relevant
social cues. As students enter adolescence, the complexity of peer interaction further intensifies,
requiring adolescents to perform skills related to establishing and sustaining close relationships,
adjusting to the communication needs of others, using inferential and figurative language, and
monitoring their own social behavior. Also, youth whose disabilities are more severe also may
exhibit simultaneous speech and communication impairments, lack adequate training in
augmentative or alternative communication system use, or engage in challenging or stereotyped
behavior, each of which has the potential to impact students socially. These skill limitations
highlight the importance of delivering skill-related instruction to adolescents with disabilities as
a means to promote peer interaction (Carter & Hughes, 2005).

9. 9
Typical secondary school environments often do not support social interaction between
individuals with disabilities and their general education peers. Students with intellectual
disabilities, particularly those with more severe disabilities, infrequently attend classes with their
general education peers and participate in typical school activities at diminished rates. As
students transition from primary to secondary schools, their isolation from relationships with
their general education peers can become even more pronounced. Significant changes in the
school context take place during the secondary school years. Unlike in primary schools, where
students spend most or all of their school day in a single classroom accompanied by the same
group of peers, classmates in secondary schools typically fluctuate from one period to the next as
students rotate among classrooms, making it difficult for students to have sustained access to the
same group of peers. Lecture-dominated instructional arrangements and their heightened
emphasis on academics also may hinder opportunities for social interaction in classroom settings.
In addition to physical and instructional settings, the social settings of secondary school
environments may influence the occurrence of social interaction. General education peers may
feel they lack the skills and knowledge to interact with their classmates who have intellectual
disabilities. Each of these barriers suggests the need for incorporating support-based
interventions in which aspects of school environments are arranged to promote peer interaction.
In fact, adolescents with disabilities’ lack of well-developed skills for initiating and sustaining
frequent, quality interaction may reflect limited learning and interaction opportunities, as much
as they reflect intellectual disabilities (Hughes et al, 2011).
It is, therefore, not surprising that increasing social interaction among adolescents with
and without disabilities remains a prominent focus of legislative, policy, and research initiatives.
Improving the social outcomes of youth with disabilities requires intentional efforts on the part

10. 10
of educators, who play a prominent role in equipping students with the skills they need to
interact meaningfully with their peers and ensure that environments are optimally arranged to
foster peer interaction. Promotion of social interaction among students has been identified as an
essential competency for general educators, special educators, and paraprofessionals. To
undertake this task effectively, educators must have an empirically-validated base of
interventions from which to draw. Over the past 30 years, numerous interventions have been
directed toward increasing social interaction among students with disabilities and their general
education peers (Carter & Hughes, 2005).
Teachers’ Opinions on the Inclusion of Students with Intellectual Disability
What do teachers think about the placement of students with intellectual disabilities in
mainstream public schools and included in general education classrooms? Two studies stand out
in the literature on this topic: one study from Finland and one study from Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Both include the preference of teachers to have students with disabilities in
mainstreamed schools and point out the importance of having assistance with instructing students
with intellectual disabilities (Jahnukainen & Korhonen, 2003; Memisevic & Hodzic, 2011).
In Finland, integration of students with intellectual disability into the general education
classroom has not occurred that often. However, about 80% of teachers asked thought that the
best placement was in special classes located in mainstream schools. There is evidence from
some earlier studies that when students with severe intellectual disabilities were located in a
mainstream school environment, they were engaged in activities more often and made more
social contacts with classmates than did their counterparts in separate special education schools.
In this study, the results were similar. According to the perceptions of the teachers, the students

11. 11
with severe and profound intellectual disabilities who attended a general education school were
engaged in activities with general education students more often than those who attended special
schools or somewhere else (Jahnukainen & Korhonen, 2003).
Initially, the teachers appeared to be quite skeptical about the potential of full-time
integration of students with severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Particularly noteworthy
is that among these quite experienced teachers, the only factor that seemed to explain their
unwillingness to accept full-time integration was the age of the teacher. This may be at least
partly attributed to teacher education, but it is possible that the older teachers are also tired of the
continual reforms in the school system present since the Education Reform Act of 1970
(Jahnukainen & Korhonen, 2003).
Some progress has been made, even if quite slowly. Some decades ago boys and girls
studied in different schools and the parallel school system did not offer equal opportunities for
children from poor families or those with disabilities. The whole age-group, including students
with severe and profound disabilities, are slowly beginning to be educated in the same school
system (Jahnukainen & Korhonen, 2003).
The second study found in the literature on teacher perceptions originates in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Approximately 50% of teachers asked thought that students with intellectual
disability should be included. Also, teachers believe that they are not supported enough in order
to efficiently deal with the issue of inclusion (Memisevic & Hodzic, 2011). A successful
inclusion depends on a number of different players including parents, administrators, teachers,
and children. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are an additional factor which might inhibit

12. 12
the educational, psychological, and social adjustment of children with disabilities in regular
classes (Memisevic & Hodzic, 2011).
A number of studies from other countries should also be included here. For example, in
Italy, the support for inclusion was given by 77.6% of the teachers. In Greece, 52.9% of the
teachers favored the inclusion of special educational needs students in regular classes. In
Montenegro, the support for inclusion was given by 43% of the teachers. In Serbia, teachers
have slightly negative attitudes towards inclusion, and in one study in the U.S., teachers were
mostly neutral on the issue of inclusion. Teachers were also neutral in the United Arab Emirates
(McNally, Cole, & Waugh, 2001).
Teachers in Bosnia and Herzegovina tend to have positive attitudes toward the process of
inclusion. They are willing to teach all students in their classes regardless of their needs, but at
the same time there are still a lot of concerns that teachers have. Additional support should be
given to the teachers by school management in order to implement the process of inclusion.
They should reduce the number of students in classes. They should get help from special
education teachers in individualizing the curriculum for children with intellectual disability.
Teachers also voiced the opinion that they should receive additional trainings in topics such as
individualization and inclusion, autism, and other disorders, in addition to social skills training
for children with intellectual disability (Memisevic & Hodzic, 2011).
General Education Students’ Attitudes on Inclusion
Teachers’ attitudes clearly impact the inclusion of students with intellectual disability in
the general education classroom. However, what are the attitudes of general education students
on having students with intellectual disability in their class or school? A 2007 study in the U.S.

13. 13
indicates that students have limited contact with students with intellectual disability in their
classrooms and school. They perceive students with intellectual disability as moderately
impaired rather than mildly impaired. They believe that students with intellectual disability can
participate in nonacademic classes, but not in academic classes. They view inclusion as having
both negative and positive effects, and they do not want to interact socially with a peer with
intellectual disability, particularly outside school (Siperstein, Parker, Bardon, & Widaman,
2007).
In carrying out this national survey of almost 6,000 middle school students, one of the
assumptions made was that after years of policies supporting inclusion, students would report
high levels of contact with students with intellectual disability. However, this outcome did not
occur. As little as 40% of youth in the country attending urban, suburban, and rural schools
reported having a student with intellectual disability in their previous elementary school or
present middle school. Only 10% reported having a student with intellectual disability in their
current classroom. With such limited contact with students with intellectual disability in school,
on what basis do students form their attitudes about students with intellectual disability? Most
youth gain their knowledge about people with intellectual disability from mainly secondary
sources, such as media and from talking about intellectual disability with their teachers or
parents (Siperstein et al, 2007).
When asked about their perceptions of the capabilities of students with intellectual
disability, students see their counterparts with intellectual disability as competent, but not as
competent as the average adolescent. Therefore, although they believe that students with
intellectual disability can carry out the simplest tasks, they do not believe that students with
intellectual disability can carry out tasks that are more complex like using public transportation

14. 14
or handling money. Given these findings it is understandable that more than half believe that
students with intellectual disability should not participate in academic classes such as English
and mathematics. Additionally, there is a lack of support for academic inclusion to students’
expectation that including students with intellectual disability in academic classes would impede
their own learning or create discipline problems. Part of the reason that students support the
inclusion of students with intellectual disability in nonacademic classes, such as art and gym, is
because this inclusion provides less chance for negative impact on them academically. It should
be noted that students believe that including students with intellectual disability will have a
positive impact on them personally by making them more accepting of differences and teaching
them that differences are acceptable (Siperstein et al, 2007).
The most important finding of the study is that students’ perception of a person with
intellectual disability is the factor. Neither contact nor exposure leads to more positive attitudes,
but rather contact and exposure that provide youth with the opportunity to witness the
competence of individuals with intellectual disability. Students who perceive students with
intellectual disability as more competent are also more positive about the inclusion of those
students in academic classrooms (Siperstein et al, 2007).
Although educators have made considerable efforts to promote inclusive practices,
students report little contact with their counterparts with intellectual disability in their classrooms
and schools. They are unwilling to interact with students with intellectual disability outside
school and limit their interactions in school to those that are less personal in nature. They expect
that inclusion will have a positive effect on them personally, and also expect a negative effective
academically. Finally, although students are in support of inclusion in nonacademic classes, they
are not supportive of inclusion in academic classes (Siperstein et al, 2007).

15. 15
To promote change, educators must engage in a programmatic and systematic approach
to facilitate positive attitudes among youth. Attitudes can change, but effort, creativity, and
commitment are necessary. Finding ways of youth to witness the competence of people with
intellectual disability would go a long way toward fostering positive attitudes (Siperstein et al,
2007).
Parental Attitudes: Specialized Schools vs. Regular Schools with Inclusive Settings
What are parental attitudes on including students with intellectual disability in the general
education classroom? One must consider that parents have a unique perspective on their children
with intellectual disabilities because they were the first to detect the disability in the child.
During the first few months of life, babies with many forms of intellectual disability are less
likely to be identified as such by strangers. Parents usually report that their baby is just like the
other children in the family at that age. Parents and others are typically unaware of the subtle
characteristics that differentiate babies with intellectual disabilities from typically developing
babies. Since many tests of early infancy evaluate many of these children as normal, this
supports parental notions of escaping the disablement of their child (Gaad, 2007).
Four parents of school-age children with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities in
Egypt were asked about how culture can affect their children’s inclusion in regular classrooms,
and many revealed their concerns about how society looks at their children and how that can
affect educational decisions. When faced with separating their child into a school specializing in
disabilities, parents often feel they have no choice about this. Some do not believe that it is
possible to have their child in a regular school and an inclusion general education setting. A
parent with a child with Down’s syndrome was interviewed about having her child in a regular

16. 16
school with general education students. She stated that having in a regular school was the
primary thing that mattered to her, not whether the child was in a general education class (Gaad,
2007).
Another mother in England was interviewed in the study whose son attended an included
secondary school. She stated that she did not know that there was an option other than full
inclusion. She would not accept any form of educational segregation. She said it helped her son
come close to being normal. Although legislation and regulations are helping more and more
parents to place their children with intellectual disabilities in regular schools, some parents do
not take advantage of that option, preferring a special school. One mother placed her child in a
special school because she thought the child had a better chance to learn at her own speed in the
special school with only a few children in the classroom and many supports and specialized
teachers (Gaad, 2007).
It depends on the parents’ awareness of inclusive school settings and the implementation
of the national laws in local school districts. Some parents see it as their child’s right to have
their child in a regular school in an inclusive general education setting. Others prefer the more
specialized treatment available in a special school (Gaad, 2007).
Conclusion
Therefore, several factors should be considered when examining the inclusion of students
with intellectual disabilities in the general education classroom. Legal aspects in the U.S. and
other countries discussed in the paper affect positive social and academic outcomes for students
with intellectual disabilities. The access of students with intellectual disability to the general
education curriculum is important in the discussion. One must also consider behavior

17. 17
modifications such as behavior chains in the success of inclusion for these students. Students
with intellectual disability must receive social skills instruction on how to interact with general
education students in the mainstreamed classroom. Teachers opinions, discussed here in two
countries, is generally positive in regard to inclusion. However, teachers point out the need for
the additional assistance that support staff would provide to them in instructing these students in
general education contexts. Student attitudes should also be considered, and generally students
have had little contact with students with intellectual disability despite laws such as IDEA that
have supported this inclusion. Finally, parental attitudes were examined, and they tended to vary
on the circumstances of the family as to whether they would prefer a regular school and a general
education setting for their child.

18. 18
References
Carter, E.W., & Hughes, C. (2005). Increasing social interaction among adolescents with
intellectual disabilities and their general education peers: Effective Interventions.
Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(4), 179-193.
Gaad, E. (2007). Cross-cultural perspectives on the effect of cultural attitudes towards inclusion
for children with intellectual disabilities. Internal Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(3),
311-328.
Hughes, C., Golas, M., Cosgriff, J., Brigham, N., Edwards, C., & Cashen, K. (2011). Effects of
a social skills intervention among high school students with intellectual disabilities and
autism and their general education peers. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 36(1-2), 46-61.
Jahnukainen, M., & Korhonen, A. (2003). Integration of students with severe and profound
intellectual disabilities into the comprehensive school system: Teachers’ perceptions of
the education reform in Finland. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 50(2), 169-180.

19. 19
James, J.M, Walker, R., Utley, K., & Maughan, R. (2012). A comparison of embedded total
task instruction in teaching behavioral chains to massed one-on-on instruction for
students with intellectual disabilities: Accessing general education settings and core
academic content. Behavior Modification, 36(3), 320-340.
Lee, S.H., Soukup, J.H., Little, T.D., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2009). Student and teacher variables
contributing to access to the general education curriculum for student with intellectual
and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 29-44.
Logan, K.R., Malone, D.M. (1998). Instructional contexts for students with moderate, severe,
And profound intellectual disabilities in general education elementary classrooms.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities, 33(1), 62-
74.
McNally, R.D., Cole, P.G, Waugh, R.F. (2001). Regular teachers’ attitudes to the need for
additional classroom support for the inclusion of students with intellectual disability.
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilit, 26(3), 257-273.
Memisevic, H, & Hodzic, S. (2011). Teachers attitudes towards inclusion of students with
intellectual disability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Journal of Inclusive
Education., 15(7), 699-710.
Siperstein, G.N., Parker, R.C., Bardon, J.N., Widaman, K.F. (2007). Council for Exceptional
Children, 73: 4, 435-455.

20. 20
Smith, Deborah. (2007). Introduction to special education: Making a difference. Pearson:
San Francisco.