ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES IN THE INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTJa s o n D. Fr u t hWright State UniversityMe l a n ie N . W oo d sWright State UniversityThis study examines the impact of inclusion on secondary students by focusing on the performance of students without disabilities in the inclusive environment compared to their performance in a seg regated environment. Many studies exist demonstrating the positive impact of the inclusive environment on the performance of students with disabilities. However, there is little research demonstrating the impact of the inclusive environment on the performance of students without disabilities. This randomized control experiment showed that there was no significant dilference in the performance of stu dents without disabilities in the inclusive versus segregated environ ments in reading, science, and social studies content areas. Students without disabilities scored significantly higher in segregated envi ronments versus inclusive environments in math. Further research examining the impact of the environment on the performance of stu dents without disabilities is recommended.Introductionoffer appropriate supports provided free of Researchers, advocates, and theoristscharge to those who have been identified as agree that students with disabilities learn besthaving a disability in accordance with casein the inclusive environment alongside theirlaw and the Individuals with Disabilitiespeers (Idol, 2006; Kune, 1992; Zaretsky,Education Act (P.L. 94-142, Section 1412 [5] 2005). Provisions o f the Individuals with[B]). This environment involves differenti Disabilities Education Act stipulate that stuated instruction, leveled activities, or even dents with disabilities must be educated inmultiple professionals in the same classroom their least restrictive environment (P.L. 94-at a time. Thus, the experience of a student in 142, Section 1412 [5] [B]). As well, a teaman inclusive classroom is inherently different o f individuals including parents, teachers, andfrom a student in a segregated classroom. administrators must agree to any deviationResearchers such as Idol (2006) and Far from that placement.rell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, and Gallan-The inclusive environment is the environ naugh (2007) provided evidence that students ment in which students with disabilities and with disabilities performed better in the inclu students without disabilities learn side-by- sive environment than the segregated envi side in the same classroom. These classrooms ronment. According to Idol, standardized testscores generally increased or were unchanged351

352 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3after an inclusion policy was implemented.performance in light of high-stakes testing, This is quite significant, as the students whoidentifying each predictor for student suc were introduced to the classroom were stucess is vital. Therefore, identifying environ dents with disabilities, and generally had lowments in which students are learning best er academic ability levels than the studentswould prove valuable to stakeholders. As they were joining in the inclusive classroom.well, subsequent research regarding support Advocates also point to accepted eduor justifications for aspects of the inclusive cational theories to show that students withenvironment will help refine the practice of disabilities benefit from the inclusive environteachers in every environment. To this point, ment. According to Kune (in Villa, Thousand,the inclusive environment has gained favor Stainback and Stainback,1992), the inclusiveand been mandated as a basis for the edu environment more closely meets studentscation of students with disabilities as noted needs in accordance with Maslows hierarchy.in its requirement of the least restrictive The segregated environment inappropriatelyenvironment provision of the Individuals places achievement before belonging. That is,with Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 94- students must achieve in the segregated envi142, Section 1412 [5] [B]). The inclusive ronment before they can belong in the generalenvironment has been generally accepted as environment. According to Kune, proponentsincreasing the educational performance and of the inclusive environment understand thatsocial experience of students with disabili students must know that they belong beforeties. However, an experiment measuring the they can achieve.performance of students without disabilities A number of factors could be responsiblein the inclusive environment compared to a for the increase in performance of studentscontrol group of their peers in the segregat with disabilities in the inclusive environment.ed environment is necessary. Then, further Teachers who succeed in the inclusive envianalysis of the environment can take place ronment utilize superior teaching strategiesto identify those aspects that this unique en such as team- or co-teaching, universal design,vironment provides that benefits all students. and differentiated instruction. According toThe inclusive environment represents a Ferguson, Desjarlais, and Meyer (2000), thesechange for how students with and without along with other evidenced-based strategiesdisabilities have historically learned. This uniquely equip the inclusive environment forenvironment has the intent to embrace all student success. Further research is necessarystudents and meet their educational needs. to determine which of these numerous stratAccording to Lipsky and Gartner (1998); egies and methods impact learning the mostConnor and Ferri (2007), increasing the per within the environment.formance of students with disabilities and However, little research has been carrieddifferences requires a restructuring of the out that displays the impact of the inclusivepractice and approach of education -not ad environment as an educational method, stratdressing students with differences as a part of egy, or treatment for students who have nota separate system. Lipsky and Gartner go on been identified as having a disability. It isto assert, A dual system of education fails not known how students without disabilitiesall students, primarily those with disabili perform in the inclusive environment whereties. As well, separation is costly, a civil students with disabilities are present, activerights violation, and a cause for limited out members in the learning process.comes for students with disabilities (p. 78). As schools seek to maximize studentThe authors assert that under this inclusive

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 353model, the services and nature of the schoolsof labeling, segregation, and exclusion of the are in need of improvement-not further claspast. Authors such as Lipsky (2005) claim that sifying its students who are suffering undersuch a system fosters the growth and develop the schools care. Further, including studentsment of each student to his or her potential with differences ought to be a part of a modelregardless of ability or disability. According system of school improvement. Accordingto Lipsky (2005), such a system should in to Lipsky and Gartner (1998), school imclude strong leadership, quality teachers, provement with a foundation of includingchallenging curriculum, differentiated in all students incorporates an end to labelingstruction, careful and regular assessments, students and shutting them out of the regularengagement of parents and community, and classroom to obtain needed services (p. 81).a focus on the meeting of standards and the Often miscommunication among polachievement of outcomes (p. 156). Similarly, icy-makers such as government officials,Crockett (2002) claims, What schools really administrators, school boards, and localrequire are responsive leaders-knowledge- educational associations leads to confusionable persons in positions of influence who are and mismanagement at the classroom levcommitted to ensuring contexts that support el. According to Ainscow, Farrell, Tweddlelearning for each and every student (p. 157). and Malki (1999), Within the data, it wasSeveral studies have gathered evidence apparent that there was general support forregarding performance in the inclusive en inclusive education but enormous differencesvironment. Farrell, et al. (2007) studied the of opinion about LEA inclusion policies andrelationship between the inclusion of students what they might involve (p. 2). The differwith disabilities and academic achievement in ing agendas of the various stakeholders couldprimary and secondary schools in England. place teachers and parents in a precariousThey examined academic performance at position regarding how their student willseveral traditional benchmarks and sought a receive the best education. In another study,relationship between that performance and Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2004), identifythe level of inclusiveness at that school. First, the different pressures and the nature of thethey found no significant statistical relation tensions between national policies for raisingship between the performance of a district standards and reducing marginalization (p.and its level of inclusiveness. That is, in all, 137). Zaretsky (2005) notes the lack of conthe performance of a rather segregated group sistent dialogue between principals, parents,(or group without students with disabilities) and teachers as problematic to orchestratingcould not be statistically distinguished from a successful environment. Perpetuating ana more inclusive group- which of course in us versus them division between scholarscluded students of more varying ability. The in special education and disability studies isauthors show the miniscule impact of includ counterproductive and damaging to attemptsing a great number of students in the district, by practitioners to attend to multiple interestsin showing that introducing students eligible and ways ofknowing (p. 82). Such examplesfor a free school meal had 15.54 times more highlight the difficulties associated with putnegative impact on student scores than the ting theory into practice in regard to creatingintroduction of students with special needs. an inclusive environment.Thus, they concluded that schools should not Constructing a new educational enviworry about the inclusive environment nega ronment with such bold aspirations wouldtively impacting the performance of studentscertainly require a shift from the dual systemwithout disabilities.

354 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3In a four-year study, Peetsma, Vergeer,average student statewide test scores over a Roeleveld, and Karsten (2001) measured thefour-year period (Idol, 2006, p. 89). performance of matched pairs of pupils -Idol (2006) stated, One of the biggest one in a mainstream school and the other inconcerns of many educators and the general a special school. They determined, At-riskpublic is the possible adverse effect that the pupils in regular education made more progpresence of student with disabilities in the ress in mathematics than pupils in schoolsgeneral education classroom might have on for pupils with (learning or behavior difficulthe statewide testing results of other students ties). As well, Pupils cognitive develop(p. 93). Such data should go a long way to ment in regular education was significantlydispelling such myths and opening up optimal stronger (p. 130). Mastropieri et al. (2006)educational experiences for all students based found similar results in a study involvingon practical evidence.traditional versus collaborative educationalIn summary, there is considerably more approaches in the inclusive science classresearch that focuses on students with disabil room. According to the authors, Students inities, and less for students without disabilities inclusive science classes can work with eachthat are in the inclusive environment. The other in critical content areas, and when theypurpose of this study, then, is to examine the do so, their content area learning improvesacademic performance of high school students at a rate greater than that attained throughwithout disabilities who are learning in inclu instruction that is more traditional (p. 136).sive environments. The outcome of the present Idol (2006) published perhaps the moststudy contributes to the on-going dialogue comprehensive study on inclusive environregarding the most effective environments, ments. Idol found in a study of inclusivestrategies, and methods for student learning.elementary schools that a majority of theThe research question guiding this study: teachers reported that the performance ofAre there significant differences in the students without disabilities improved or waseducational performance - measured by unaffected by the presence of students withSocial Studies, Science, Mathematics, and disabilities in the classroom. Similarly, a maReading - of 10th grade students without jority also reported that having students withdisabilities in inclusive versus segregated disabilities in the classroom either increasedlearning environments?test scores of the students without disabilitiesor scores remained about the same. To sumMethodsup, These data provide evidence that theResearch Designpresence of students with disabilities in theFor this group comparison study, a post general education program had not been deletest only, quasi-experimental design was terious to the test performance of the generalutilized to assess the differences in the per education students (p. 85).formance of two distinct, mutually exclusive Idol (2006) found similar results in a studygroups: 10th grade students without disabiliof four secondary schools. Again, a large ties who learned in an inclusive environment majority of teachers reported that student and 10th grade students without disabilities performance either improved or remained who learned in a segregated environment unaffected by the presence of students with (N=203). As these students had not been iden disabilities in the classroom. The most tified as having a disability, their placement striking finding was that with one exception, by the school in either the control or tested each school made noticeable improvement in environment was random.

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 355Settingperformance, or socioeconomic status do not According to the Ohio Department ofskew the performance of a particular class Education School Year Report Cards, theroom. Thus, scores from students who werehigh school achieved an Excellent ratingplaced in a classroom for a particular subject for three years prior to this study. This desby non-random means were excluded from ignation indicated that the school achievedthe study. Administrative placements, paren a satisfactory number of indicators that thetal requests, and students with disabilities are school made progress toward Adequateall examples of individual student placements Yearly Progress. Table 1 shows demographicthat were non-random. Also excluded from data of the district studied compared to statethe study were entire classrooms made up of of Ohio averages.students whose placement was non-random.For example, resource classrooms made uponly of students with disabilities and honors Table 1. Study District and State of Ohioclassrooms made up of students who had to Average Demographicsmeet certain criteria and be approved for wereEnrollment Poverty LEP Disabilitiesnot appropriate for the study as their placeDistrictment was not random. For this reason, theABC3,51330.9%0.2% 15.4%number of scores for each research questionOhioand subject area does not equal 203.Average 2,67934.1%3.4% 13.3%MeasuresParticipantsThe data for this study was provided In this study, the target population wasfrom the results of the Ohio Graduation Test the class of 2012 at a suburban Southwest(OGT). According to the Ohio Department ern Ohio High School. O f these 10th gradeof Education, the OGT is a criterion-refer students, the performance of two distinct,enced assessment based on the Ohio Content mutually exclusive groups was assessed:Standards that ensures students who graduate 10th grade students without disabilities whoand receive a diploma from a school in the learned in an inclusive environment andstate of Ohio achieve at least minimum stan 10th grade students without disabilities whodards in the content areas - reading, science, learned in a segregated environment. Formathematics, and social studies assessments. this study, 203 students met the criteria forRoughly 145,000 students took the assess examination. That is, 203 students could bement in 2010 - the year this study took placeidentified as 10th grade students for the first(Ohio Department of Education, 2011).time and were taking the OGT for the firstStudents begin taking the OGT in the time. Further, these 203 members of the10th grade. Each content area test consists of 2012 graduating class had not been identimultiple-choice and written response ques fied as having a disability or have any othertions from which a raw score is formed. A special placement requests or designationsscaled score is then derived from the raw that kept them from being placed in either ascore on each test so as to allow for reporting segregated or inclusive classroom randomly.and comparison between different adminis Naturally, the randomness of each stutrations within each content area. For this dents placement is essential to the comparireason, comparisons across content areas areson study as it ensures that variables attributnot appropriate. ed to each student such as attendance, past

356 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3Variablescompared to the alpha of .05. If the p-value Variables that were controlled includeis less than the alpha of .05, then the outputseveral realities of the environment that could is statistically significant and determineslimit the study due to the convenience sam whether to accept or reject the null hypothe pling. These include significant differences sis of no significant difference existing in the in the students involved in each class due to educational performance of students from the non-random placement. The randomness of inclusive and segregated environments.each students placement in either the incluResultssive or segregated environment had to be confirmed for his or her performance to be validThe following tables display the per and relevant to this study. This random place formance and descriptive statistics for the ment of students also accounted for variables research questions: Is there a significant other than environment that could impact difference in the educational performance of performance such as class size, attendance, 10th grade students without disabilities who past performance, and socioeconomic status. learned in an inclusive environment compared Other variables that were controlled include to the educational performance of 10th grade significant differences in the teachers in each students without disabilities who learned in a classroom. The certification and experience of segregated environment in terms of the Ohio each teacher as well as confirming the unifor Graduation Test at ABC High School?mity of the curriculum, outcomes, and courseTable 2 displays the descriptive statistics mapping are all important variables that were for the students test scores for the first re consistent throughout the study.search question.Data CollectionTable 2. Descriptive Statistics for SocialThe test scores for the students selectedStudies OGT Scoresfor the sample were obtained from the Director of Curriculum and Instruction with theStatistic Segregated Inclusive Totalpermission of the District Board of Education. Mean432.25424.52 429.55Then, each students classroom placement Number (N)114.0061.00 175.00for that school year was attained through Std. Deviation26.8123.8226.00the guidance office of the high school. This Minimum374.00369.00 369.00information was used to determine whether Maximum546.00477.00 546.00the student attended an inclusive or segreRange172.00108.00177.00gated class for that content area, which thencorrelates with the given test. These contentTable 3 shows the results of the indepen areas include social studies, science, reading, dent samples t Test for performance of stu and mathematics. All students in the sample dents from the inclusive environment (experi were assigned random numbers for reference mental) and segregated environment (control) purposes to protect their identities.on the social studies section of the OGT.Data AnalysisThe data was compared using an indepen dent samples t Test. The alpha level was set at .05. After analysis, the given p -value was

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 357Table 3: Independent Samples t TestTable 6. Descriptive Statistics for Results for Social Studies SubtestMathematics OGT ScoresVariableNMLevenesStatisticSegregatedInclusiveTotal Sig*PSegregated 114.00 432.25Mean427.48417.34425.28.514-1.886 .061*Number (N)126.0035.00161.00Inclusive61.00424.52Std. Deviation22.0518.4821.68*p > .05Minimum374.00389.00 374.00Maximum492.00456.00492.00Table 4 displays the descriptive statisticsRange118.0067.00118.00for the students test scores for the secondresearch question.Table 7 shows the results o f the indepen dent samples t Test for performance of stuTable 4. Descriptive Statistics for Science dents from the inclusive environment (experiOGT Scoresmental) and segregated environment (control) on the mathematics OGT.StatisticSegregatedInclusiveTotalMean417.66417.42417.57Table 7: Independent Samples t TestNumber (N)102.0053.00155.00Results for Mathematics SubtestStd. Deviation21.8722.2821.94LevenesMinimum373.00375.00373.00VariableNMSigPMaximum495.00464.00495.00Segregated 126.00427.48Range122.0089.00122.00.379-2.487 .014*Inclusive35.00417.34Table 5 shows the results o f the indepen*p < .05 dent samples t Test for performance of stu-dents from the inclusive environment (experiTable 8 displays the descriptive statistics mental) and segregated environment (control) for the students test scores for the fourth re on the OGT.search question.Table 5: Independent Samples t TestTable 8. Descriptive Statistics for Reading Results for Science SubtestOGT ScoresStatisticSegregatedInclusiveTotalVariableNMLevenesSigPMean424.35423.06424.00Segregated 102.00 417.66Number (N)136.0051.00187.00.900-.065.948*Std. Deviation 17.0915.2816.59Inclusive53.00417.42Minimum381.00377.00377.00*p > .05Maximum468.00451.00468.00Table 6 displays the descriptive statisticsRange87.0074.0091.00for the students test scores for the third re search question.

358 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3Table 9 shows the results of the indepenLimitationsdent samples t Test for performance of stuThe quasi-experimental design does pro dents from the inclusive environment (experi duce a number of considerations regarding mental) and segregated environment (control) internal validity. First, the established, intact on the OGT.groups remove the ability for the researcher toTable 9: Independent Samples t Testrandomly assign the participants to the groups. Results for Reading SubtestThe groups used for this study are a result of the standard scheduling practices of the ABCVariableNMLevenesCity School district for the class of 2012. TheSig*Pdata attained merely results from records reSegregated 136.00 424.35search regarding the students performance in.502-.474 .636*those already-assigned groups. This inabilityInclusive 51.00 423.06to assign the groups establishes a tremendous*p > .05burden on the part of the researcher to invesAccording to the results, in the areas of socialtigate and control the extraneous variables for studies, science, and reading, the /?-value iseach participant. This includes considering greater than the established alpha of .05; thereteacher expertise and certification in the given fore, there was no significant difference in thecontent areas. This also includes considering performance of the students who learned in thethe classes in terms of size, attendance, and inclusive environment versus the segregated enpast performance. For future studies, noting vironment. In these content areas, students fromthe specific model of teaching employed in the segregated environment performed slightlyeach classroom is important as well. In addi better, but the null hypothesis was not rejected.tion, determining whether or not the original The results showed a significant differassignment to an inclusive or segregated en ence in the performance of the students whovironment for each participant was, indeed,learned in the inclusive environment versus random is imperative.the segregated environment in mathematics;This study requires random classroom as students from the segregated environmentassignments. If a participant were assigned had a mean score of 10.14 points higher withto a specific group for a specific reason, their a /7-value of .014, which is less than the alpharesponses to the environment would corrupt of .05. Students from the segregated environthe results. For example, if counselors be ment performed significantly better, and thelieved that students with higher IQs may be null hypothesis was rejected.inclined to help students with disabilities and were subsequently assigned to the inclusiveDiscussionenvironment at a greater frequency than the segregated environment, then it would beThis study fulfilled the purpose of deterinappropriate to compare the educationalmining the impact of the inclusive environ performance of the students without disabil ment on the academic performance of 10th ities in the two environments. Ultimately, the graders for the sample selected. Results were scores from many students were excluded mixed as no significant difference in per from this study. Moreover, this study posed formance was found in the content areas of absolutely no threat to the well-being of the social studies, science, and reading. However, students involved; as only a record of their a significant difference in performance was performance in the original classroom envi found in the content area of mathematics.ronment was analyzed. That is, the researcher

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 359had absolutely no impact on the instructiontheir performance was statistically unaffected or assigning of students to groups. The stuaccording to this study. Also, the sample and dents without disabilities were assigned topopulation somewhat limit the ability to gen their classroom assignments per the standarderalize the results to the extent that one would scheduling practices that randomly assignedlike to infer from the study. In this instance, students without disabilities or any other spea suburban Southwestern Ohio School rated cial considerations to either the segregated orExcellent by the state demonstrated little or inclusive environment.no significant difference in the performance The integrity of the study was maintainedof students in the inclusive environment ver throughout by controlling a number of differsus the segregated environment. Certainly, ent factors that could threaten the validity ofit could be reasonably expected that these the study. First, the randomness of the studentresults could be replicated in similar settings placements was ensured by the schools utiin schools with similar demographics who lization of a computer program to randomlyhave constructed content area departments place those students who did not have specialwith the degree of uniformity of curriculum placement restrictions into both the inclusiveand instruction and similar approaches to the and segregated environments. Next, teacherinclusion of students with disabilities into thecertification, class size, and curriculum weregeneral education classroom.all quite consistent. For example, teachers ofAnother fact worth noting is that mathe the same course gave common assessmentsmatics was the only content area to register a to their students at the end of each unit tosignificant difference in performance between gauge each classs progress in respect to thethe two groups. Though the difference in per other classes within the content area.formance was slight, it was statistically signif However, there were other unavoidableicant. Another way that the mathematics class aspects of the study that will need further rees differed from the other three content areas search for their impact to be fully understood.pertained to course offerings. While there was First, most students attended a segregateda great deal of uniformity in the courses for class for some content areas and an inclusiveeach content area for social studies, science, class for other content areas. It is plausibleand reading (American Studies, Biology, and that there could be a cross-class impact that10th Grade English, respectively), there were is currently unknown. That is, the fact thatseveral more classes that had to be considered a student attends an inclusive science classin order to account for all of the randomly could impact her performance in her segregatplaced 10th grade students in mathematics ed reading class. Additionally, the number ofclasses including Algebra, Geometry, Algebra cases for each environment in the study wasII, and Pre-Calculus. Further research will be different. For example, the segregated classesnecessary to determine exactly what aspect of had 114, 102, 126, and 136 cases involved inthose inclusive mathematics classes slightlythe study, while the inclusive classes had 61,negatively impacted student performance. 53, 35, and 51 cases involved in the study.Science, social studies, and reading all Further, the topography, methods, and stylesfailed to register a significant difference in of instruction within those inclusive classesperformance. At the high school level, many necessarily varied in accordance to the needssimilarities could be identified among those of the students in the classroom. The studentscourses. Whatever aspects of learning styles, without disabilities are unavoidably impacteduniversal design, or modifications to that in by varied instructional practices. However,struction that is occurring, clearly, the students

360 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3without disabilities seem largely unaffected. this environment has on the performance of This finding is consistent with Idols 2006 students without disabilities is vital to estab study of the impact of schools implementing lishing the most effective educational strate inclusive policies.gies and methods for all students.The results of this study also imply aImplicationsnumber of new quantitative and qualitativeStatistics regarding how students performquestions that must be answered. Stake in the inclusive environment are vital to theholders should note the results of the study various stakeholders involved in public eduin regards to how very similarly students cation. Parents of students without disabiliperformed in both environments despite ties should be interested in such informationthe differing topography and methods of when they select courses with their students.instruction between the two groups. In three Teachers should be interested as they workof the four content areas tested, student per to adopt the most effective, research-basedformance was statistically unaffected by the practices in their classrooms. Administratorsdifferent methods of instruction utilized in and other school leaders should be interestedthe inclusive classroom. In addition, student as they design courses as well as ideologiesperformance was unaffected by the presence for their schools.and the needs of students with disabilities in Through established research that disthe inclusive classroom. This idea has been plays student performance in the incluintimated by researchers as identified in the sive environment, stakeholders can makeliterature review, but very rarely explicitly informed decisions about the educationalstudied or stated. That is, the presence of methods and environments that they manstudents with disabilities in the general ed date for their students. As well, armed withucation classroom and all the differences information about student performance inimplied by the instruction of such students the inclusive environment, quantitative rehad little or no discemable impact on the search can press further into which aspectsperformance of their non-disabled peers inare particularly successful with students the classroom.at large and recommend replication. Then,Thus,when considering appropriate qualitative research can log the experiencesplacements for students, stakeholders should and topography of these environments andbe mindful of the wealth of academic ben methods. This subsequent research will furefits that students with disabilities gain as ther refine educational methods, practices,well as the social benefits that both students and environments.with and students without disabilities see as a In many instances, the inclusive environresult of being included into the general edu ment may have been viewed as merely an accation classroom at, in most cases, no signif commodation or legal placement regardingicant detriment to the academic performance the education of students with disabilities.of those without disabilities who learn in the However, as those students with disabiliinclusive classroom. Stakeholders ought to ties are included into the general educationtake an unwavering stance toward including environment alongside students withoutstudents with disabilities into the general eddisabilities, naturally, the environment im ucation classroom.pacts all students. The nature of this impactIn general, there is still very little known on student performance across the board is about the true nature of the impact of the generally unknown. Knowing the effect that inclusive environment on the learning of

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 361students for whom participation in that enReferencesvironment is incidental rather than intended. Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2004). Understand Developing a more thorough understandinging and developing inclusive practices in schools: A o f student learning is essential to establishcollaborative action research network. International ing the most appropriate educational methJournal o fInclusive Education, 8(2), 125-139.ods and environments-especially in light of Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., Tweddle, D., & Mallei, G.(1999). The role of LEAs in developing inclusivethe ever-increasing pressure on stakeholderspolicies and practices. British Journal o f Specialto elicit greater performance from each stuEducation, 26(3), 136-140.dent. Such understanding must be derived Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: from valid, appropriate studies that produceResistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in spe observable and quantifiable evidence.cial education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63-77.Crockett, J. (2002). Special educations role in preparingresponsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 157-168.Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallan- naugh, F. (2007). The relationship between inclusion and academic achevement in English mainstream schools. School Effectiveness and School Improve ment, / 8 , 335-352.Ferguson, D. L., Desjarlais, A., Meyer, G., (2000). Im proving education: The promise o f inclusive school ing. Newton, Massachusetts: The National Institute for Urban School Improvement.Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special education, 27(2), 77-94.Villa, R. A. (1992). Restructuringfor caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating het erogeneous schools. Brookes Pub. Co.Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1998). Taking inclusion into the future. Educational Leadership, 56, 78-81.Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkley, S., McDuffie, K., Tomquist, E. H., et al. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science. Journal o f Special Education, 40(2), 130-137.Ohio Department of Education. (2011). Ohio Graduation Tests interpretive guide educator reports. Columbus, OH: US. Office ofAssessment.Pcctsma T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils development in special and regular education. Edu cational Review, 50(2), 125-135.Safford, P. L. & Safford, E. J. (Eds.). (2006). Children with disabilities in America: A historical handbook and guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.Zaretsky, L. (2005). From practice to theory: Inclusive models require inclusive theories. American Second ary Education, 33(3), 65-86.

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.