The increasing inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classes still leads to debate and many advocate for full inclusion of all students. Arguments for full inclusion are generally rights-based, but proponents also claim research supports the effectiveness of full inclusion over specialist provision for all students with disabilities. In this article, we analyse and critique the use of the research literature in an Australian advocacy paper as an example of the broad claims made concerning full inclusion. We examine the extent to which the sources used provide conclusive evidence about the merits of full inclusion. We find the advocacy paper relies heavily on opinion and non-peer-reviewed literature, with little use of quantitative research that compares outcomes for students in different settings. We suggest that policymakers should treat the conclusions drawn in this paper cautiously and give due consideration to the literature that is not supportive of full inclusion.
In this article, I address the problem that education support for students with communication impairment may be delivered in an inconsistent manner within schools, or school systems, exposing affected students to harm and affected schools to the risk of litigation. Analysis of relevant Australian disability discrimination legislation and related case law demonstrates that there is a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustment for students with communication impairment and that a fair and equitable system may be postulated to administer that obligation. The Australian Government has recently committed to a needs-based funding model for Australian schools but further work needs to be done to establish how resources that flow to schools under that model should best be applied. This article aims to provide some guidance to those who will make decisions within schools about the management of the sometimes scarce and often expensive support resources for students with communication impairment.
This paper reports the findings from a study investigating Bhutanese parents' involvement in supporting their children with special educational needs (SEN) in schooling. The interaction between the parents themselves in supporting each other was also explored. Individual interviews were conducted with 26 parents (13 fathers and 13 mothers) of children with either full inclusion or partial inclusion in 3 schools located in 3 regions (urban, semi-urban, and rural) and analysed using manual thematic coding and Leximancer text mining software. Of Epstein's (1987) 6 types of parental involvement activities in education, these parents reported their actions to be parenting, volunteering in schools, supporting learning and development at home, and collaborating with the community. The minimal interaction among the parents was mostly between the stay-in-school urban mothers who had consistent but impromptu and informal interactions. The implications of this study inform the need for schools to respond to policy and to actively engage parents, and for education programs and support groups to be set up to strengthen parental involvement in the education of children with SEN in Bhutan.
In the abovementioned article by Sng, Carter, & Stephenson, Figure 2 is incorrect. The phase change line from Baseline' to the Intervention' is cropped and in the wrong place. These two errors may mislead readers of the article.
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
