Krishnan, S. (2024). Key Factors Influencing Inclusive Placement Decisions of Students With Extensive Support Needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 49(3), 174-189.
Sudha Krishnan’s recent article in TASH’s primary academic journal is a difficult read for a parent. And if it makes you want to scream, remember that you knew all this already, but from an advocacy perspective, it is useful that Krishnan has put it on paper and provides the authority of peer-reviewed research.
The article builds on previous research that shows that educator beliefs are the biggest influence on IEP placement decisions for students with Extensive Support Needs (ESN). Numerous articles provide evidence for this claim: Agran et al., 2020; Cole et al., 2004; Gee et al., 2020; Kleinert et al., 2015; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010, 2012). Agran et al. (2020) Professor Kathy Gee’s 2020 study (wonderfully summarized by EvolveandEffect.com) utilized the arbitrariness of IEP placement decisions by pairing students with matching abilities and disabilities coming into the school district and then comparing their social engagement and progress.
In "Key Factors Influencing Inclusive Placement Decisions of Students With Extensive Support Needs," Krishnan (2024) explores the multifaceted considerations that affect the placement decisions for students requiring extensive support in educational settings.
The primary objective of Krishnan’s research is to identify and analyze the key factors that influence the decision-making process. The author employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data from surveys distributed to educators and qualitative interviews with educational partners, including parents, teachers, and special education administrators. The interviews were conducted with general and special educators and paraprofessionals from multiple schools, but only one school was fully committed to inclusive practices.
Krishnan’s findings throw light on teacher and staff attitudes and a belief we have heard many times – that students with Extensive Support Needs cannot be included. It becomes clear through the article that even in the “fully inclusive” school, the general education and paraeducator staff, and many of the special education teachers, do not imagine inclusive education as an opportunity for the students with ESN to be included in the curriculum-based learning experience happening in the general education classroom, and are therefore left performing “inclusion” without any real educational purpose.
The themes identified in the research included:
Beliefs regarding special education: Many general education and special education teachers believed that high school students needed to learn specific vocational skills in a special education space, so their time in general education should be limited.
Limited classrooms for inclusion: Many interviewees referred to the acceptance of students in a general education class as a choice for the general educator, requiring a level of open-mindedness.
Absence of meaningful inclusion: Whether inclusion ‘worked' or not was often judged on poor inclusive practices such as sitting at the back of the classroom, no modified or even accommodated materials planned beforehand, and little or no thought going into the inclusion of the student. There seems to be a complete lack of attention paid to the student with ESN needing to learn in the inclusive classroom. Critically, it often seemed that the inclusive experience only lasted for a fraction of the class time, with paraeducators withdrawing the student when their lack of meaningful inclusion became apparent.
One paraprofessional is quoted as saying “Most of the time, I go into the class for 5 to 10 minutes, then we leave to walk in the field. I like inclusion, it gives me the chance to make up my 10,000 steps.”
Viewing parents as problems: Many educators were making half-hearted or even self-sabotaged attempts at inclusion because it was “what the parents wanted,’’ and many parents were also viewed as making unrealistic demands.
Narrow definitions of normalcy in behavior: General education teachers often viewed any minor neurodivergent behavior as disruptive even if it wasn't aggressive, refusing to allow any deviation from the standard norms of behavior in their teaching space.
Biased data collection for exclusion: Teachers admitted to manipulating data collection to “prove” that they were right when it came to the need for a segregated placement.
Role of paraeducators: The article contains intriguing insights into the treatment of paraeducators, who were often ignored or treated rudely by general education teachers as though the underlying lack of a welcome for the student with ESN was transferred onto their supports. The article highlights the lack of training and involvement of paraprofessionals in placement discussions and the lack of thought put into how educational systems utilize paraeducator support.
Krishnan concludes by advocating for a more nuanced understanding of these factors to enhance the decision-making process and promote successful inclusive practices for students with Extensive Support Needs. The findings of this study have significant implications for policy, including investing in professional development for teachers, ensuring adequate resources are available, and fostering collaborative relationships among all educational partners involved in the process.
While we often point to research on inclusive education for the “why” or the “how” of inclusion, this article is more useful for systems-level advocacy, as it demonstrates that the ad hoc inclusion that parents can sometimes win through the IEP process is not going to be as effective as a systemic approach that begins with changing mindsets
Comments