Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Validation of an inclusive practice self-assessment tool to improve school capability

Michael Davies Ph.D, Fiona Bryer Ph.D, & Wendi Beamish Ph.D
School of Cognition, Language and Special Education and
Centre of Learning Research
Griffith University, Nathan Q4111
Australia
m.davies@griffith.edu.au

and

Chris Rawlins
Deputy Principal, Sunnybank Hills State School.

Northern hemisphere countries promote inclusive practices through a range of approaches that inspire communities to apply and adopt such practices. In Scotland, a set of approaches are applied under the banner of "Count us in", while “No child left behind” is the pronouncement for inclusion in the United States. In Australia, no catch cry is promoted, but educational specialists work towards developing and maintaining inclusive practices within school communities. With Australian schools beginning to use evaluative measures developed in the northern hemisphere, two British tools and two United States tools were reviewed and compared.  

Griffith University researchers developed a partnership with staff from Education Queensland to validate a Californian tool a specifically designed to systematically examine policies and practice on inclusion and to use a creative problem-solving approach to make improvements. The Improving School Capability (ISC) Project was established within the framework of participatory action research (PAR). University researchers, district personnel, and representatives from two primary schools collaborated as co-researchers to generate a longitudinal multi-phase project aimed at continuous school reform. This team undertook preliminary planning to articulate broad project goals, partnership protocols, and rationales for participation and then designed strategic activities for each phase of the project.

In the first phase, one of the project schools developed its own team to initially adapt the tool to fit the unique context of its own school community. Then, in the second phase, as part of a planned whole school review, the school team conducted an environmental scan of their existing practice using the adapted tool. In the third phase, strategies for school reform were developed, with support from university researchers and district personnel, and changes were implemented through a process negotiated between the ISC team and other stakeholders.

This paper initially describes the ISC project, and the process by which it was established at a primary school within the PAR framework. It then outlines some of the conditions necessary for successful use of a self-assessment tool within a primary school environment to improve inclusive practices and school capability. The willingness of the leadership team to engage in such reviews, their readiness to actively support and resource these activities, appropriate timing within the review process, and a commitment to undertake a reform process were identified, among others, as significant components of a successful review process.

b California Least Restrictive Environment Self Assessment and Continuous Improvement Activities.

Introduction

Inclusive practices have become a focus of school reform ( McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998, Peterson & Hittie, 2003 ). This reform has resulted from worldwide recognition that all students have a right to equitable, full participation in educational programs in schools. Inclusive principles of least restrictive environment (LRE) and normalization (Wolfensberger & Nirje, 1972) value individualised education appropriate to the child’s needs, such that, to the maximum extent possible, the child is educated in the least restrictive environment. LRE meets the needs of students, so that the student experiences success with the least amount of assistance (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999). Inclusive education seeks broad outcome-based goals of successful participation in inclusive environments, which can result in enriched social networks and improved quality of life for students (Anderson, 2003). Northern hemisphere countries have promoted inclusive practices through a range of approaches that inspire western communities to apply and adopt such practices. In Scotland, a set of approaches have been applied under the banner of "Count Us In." In the United States, “No Child Left Behind” is the pronouncement for inclusion. Participation of the whole community of a regular school in working towards valued inclusive practices has gradually emerged as an essential element of educational inclusion, and evaluation of school practice has also emerged as a vehicle for participation and improvement.

Developments in Scotland

The Count Us In report (HMIE, 2002) focused on achieving inclusion in Scottish schools, valuing each child as an individual, with members of school communities working together creatively to ensure that all young people enjoy success at school. This report resulted from the Standards in Scotland’s Schools Act 2000 that placed a duty on education authorities to direct education to the development of the personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities of the child to their fullest potential. Further guidance came from the Moving to Mainstream report (Audit Scotland and HMIE, 2003) that made 22 recommendations in relation to how educational councils should promote effective mainstreaming for pupils with additional support needs in the schools within their council. Inclusive practice has been identified as one of five national priorities for education identified by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE, 2004). Their report identified essential characteristics of effective inclusion and celebrated the range of successful approaches being taken by some schools and authorities. However, it also advocated a broader, more flexible, and sustained approach to developing the talents of all students by creating an ethos of achievement for all, promoting success by removing barriers to learning, countering discrimination, and promoting positive attitudes to diversity.

The HMIE supported the development of inclusion through the publication and dissemination of reviews on accessibility strategies, personal support in schools, and implementation of an Integrated Community Schools (ICS) initiative. The ICS initiative, however, was limited and often seen as an add-on activity by a specialist team. It has been recognized that strong, focused leadership and direction is needed at the highest administrative levels in local authorities, and in partner agencies such as Health Boards. At the “coalface” level of the school, “A Curriculum for Excellence” was implemented to assist flexible curriculum design to meet the needs of all individuals. This initiative provided a single clear set of purposes and a broad vision that incorporated a strong emphasis on essential learning skills, attainment, and achievement for all students through the application of flexibility as a key principle of curriculum design. Self-evaluation of quality improvement, and integrated schools through a self-evaluation toolkit was integral to these initiatives. Moreover, HMIE also conducted inspections and evaluations of the level of inclusion in place in schools.

Developments in the United States

The No Child Left Behind Act has set high standards and has sought to hold schools and districts in the United States accountable for ensuring that every child achieves to those standards. Under U.S. law, states have defined measures for each school and district to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of all their students meeting state standards by the 2013-14 school year. Schools and districts must demonstrate that the AYP targets have been met by each statistically significant subgroup of students (e.g., economically disadvantaged, English learners, students with disabilities, and students in major racial and ethnic subgroups). The 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA) stated a strong preference for educating students with disabilities in general education classes with appropriate supports. Hence, teaching teams must consider the extent to which the student will be able to participate in general education and must identify the supplemental aids and services that would facilitate the student’s placement and meaningful participation and learning in that environment. The legal basis for LRE has required that these programs and supports are in place.  

To achieve these goals, many schools have utilized a process of review and self-evaluation to identify the current capacities of the school to achieve desired outcomes and to identify areas of improvement. Improvement has been achieved with either minimal change in some schools or major restructuring and reform in others (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Sailor 2002; Villa & Thousand, 2000). The goal of restructuring is to improve education for all children in a school.

Developments in Australia

In Australia, no catch cry has been promoted, and no federal legislation has been put in place for schools to meet specific standards. However, many in the Australian educational community have been working towards developing and maintaining inclusive practices. To date, a broad collection of documents has guided practice development. At the federal level, the key document is the Disabilities Discrimination Act 1992 (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1994). At the state level, the Queensland Department of Education (Education Queensland) has promoted a 10-year plan to meet the needs of all students (QSE 2010), which has set objectives and targets for learning and retention (Destination 2010). At the school level, Education Queensland has required a School Improvement and Accountability Framework (SAIF), and annual (SAROP) and triennial (TSR) school based planning to take place.

Although these local initiatives have placed priorities on effective planning and safe and supportive communities, evaluation of inclusive practices has been neglected. Schools do not have to undergo external evaluation of inclusive practices, but are required to apply self-evaluation approaches. A school that seeks to evaluate inclusion often has to consider the use of evaluative measures developed in the northern hemisphere, such as the British Index for Inclusion. Deppeler and Harvey (2004) trialled this tool and found that it require considerable adaptation to fit the Australian context.

Characteristics of effective inclusive education

Understanding of characteristics of effective inclusive practice has developed over the last 10 years. Critical characteristics of effective iclusive education, recognised as necessary to provide the conditions for inclusive practice to take place, have been articulated i n the United States and in the United Kingdom particularly. These characteristics have provided the basis for various measures.

Halvorsen and Neary (2001) provided five key characteristics to guide effective inclusive education. First, inclusion involves all students in an age-appropriate classroom, with no special classes except for enrichment activities for all students. Second, planning and curriculum development take place to adapt core curriculum and ensure participation and learning in all activities. Third, best practices in education, particularly effective instructional strategies, need to be in place in the general education classroom. Fourth, classrooms also promote student responsibility for learning. Fifth, staff training on inclusive practice should be provided for all involved.

Anderson (2003) extended the key characteristics of Halvorsen and Neary (2001) and suggested that the critical component strategies needed to support inclusive practice are (a) principals who provide leadership in restructuring, (b) collaborative teaming for building community, and (c) instructional strategies that support the learning of all students. Although best practices are important for effective inclusive practice, successful inclusion requires a whole-school commitment to reduce the barriers of learning of all students and to respond positively to student diversity. Depeller and Harvey (2004) argued that, to maintain effectiveness, attitudes must be supported by structures that support collaboration and problem solving amongst teaching staff, parents, and students. Participation from the wider community was also valued.

Evaluative Instruments

Development of evaluative instruments, particularly over the last 10 years has followed improved understanding of inclusive practice and school-wide inclusion. In the early 1990s, it became apparent that inclusive programs needed to be subjected to more systematic evaluation. For example, Rossman and Salzman (1995) surveyed evaluation practice for inclusive education programs and showed that most evaluations were not comprehensive. Evaluations have been focused either on student outcomes, specifically academic and social gains, or on support for parents, staff, and students. Rossman and Salzman (1995) forecasted principles for comprehensive evaluation of inclusive education programs to assist with the movement toward systematic evaluation. Since that time, several approaches and instruments have been developed. Table 1 presents a comparative analysis of four of the more systematic and comprehensive evaluative instruments.

The British Index for Inclusion (Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughan, & Shaw, 2000) provided a set of materials to support schools in the process of developing inclusive practices for all students with special needs. Index components distinguished inclusive culture, inclusive policy, and inclusive practice with 45 indicators and 480 questions. Booth et al. (2000) acknowledged that the full range of indicators may not be relevant for all parts of the school community. Although the instrument is comprehensive, a major adaptation of the instrument for Australian schools considered this tool to be “too large and unwieldy” (Depeller & Harvey, 2004, p. 166). They developed four separate questionnaires for the four major stakeholder groups (viz. principals/administrators, teachers, parents, and students).

“How Good is our School” was a self-evaluation tool (HMIE, 2004) developed to support the ‘Count Us In’ policy on inclusion in Scottish schools. Along with a series of guides to self-evaluation of the quality experiences and achievements of students with additional support needs, this tool was designed for the use of school staff and officers of educational authorities and related services, in association with parents and pupils. The outcomes of self-evaluation are meant to relate strongly to effective plans for improvement. The tool has continually evolved during its use across the country. Formats can be used either as they stand or adapted for their own particular school context.

Together We’re Better (TWB) was developed by Thurlow, et al. (1999) in Minnesota to conduct a comprehensive systems change project to implement an inclusive, positive, and supportive educational system within districts, with a focus on students with a disability. Evaluation was mainly qualitative to identify what works and what does not. The tool illustrated a systematic and comprehensive approach to evaluating inclusive practices that involves all stakeholders across most of the critical elements.

The California LRE Self-Assessment and Continuous Improvement Activities (2000) tool was developed in response to 1997 changes in the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The California State Department of Education (CDE) statewide LRE Initiative developed this tool by building on and expanding past and current LRE programs and supports through the provision of information, training, and assistance to support the implementation of LRE. A design team headed by Dr. Alice Parker developed three self-assessment tools for use at the state, district, and school levels. This tool determines the current implementation of LRE and prioritises those LRE elements that need further improvement. The California LRE Self-Assessment and Continuous Improvement Activities (2000) tool was trialled in schools in 2001-2002. It has been progressively adapted since then, through monitoring of trials by the CDE, Special Education Division, and the LRE Resources Project at WestED, a private test development organisation. Research-based effective LRE strategies have been identified and disseminated through the CDE Preferred Practices Workgroup. Since 2001, many consultants and staff across districts and school sites have been trained in the implementation of the LRE Self-Assessment tool.

Table 1. A Comparison of Four Inclusive Practice Tools

The Improving School Capability (ISC) Project

In recognition of the need for a tool for districts and schools to self-assess and improve their inclusive practices, the Inclusive Education Group of researchers at Griffith University established the Improving School Capability (ISC) Project with the Education Queensland district, using the framework of participatory action research (PAR). University researchers, district personnel, and representatives from a primary school collaborated as co-researchers to generate a longitudinal multi-phase project aimed at continuous school reform. This team undertook preliminary planning to articulate broad project goals, partnership protocols, and rationales for participation and then designed strategic activities for each phase of the project. A number of tools were reviewed (see Table 1), and the California tool was chosen for the trial for a number of reasons. This tool was much shorter, and therefore, more likely to gain acceptance than the much larger British Index of Inclusion, which was undergoing a formal research trial in another Australian state ( Depeller & Harvey, 2004). It also included a review of practices in relation to vision, leadership, and climate as one of six major components, using a comprehensive and systematic evaluation process, unlike both the Scottish and Minnesota tools. Outcome data were also supportive in that the use of the LRE tool in California was involved in the improvement of an average 25% increase in 3 years in the amount of time students with disabilities spent in general education classrooms.

The project partnership used the Californian LRE tool with two Queensland schools in an education district to examine systematically their existing policies and practice on inclusion and to use a creative problem-solving approach to make improvements. For the longer term, this project was aimed to encourage schools and teachers to develop a systematic method of reviewing their inclusive practices and to develop a reflective attitude, so that continuous improvement in inclusive practices takes place.

Research Methods

In the first phase, university personnel met with school and district representatives ( n = 9) on many occasions to review the tool and to adapt it to fit the unique context of their own local school community culture, local school and district level policies, and federal and state legislation.

University personnel created a facilitative role in this small group setting, utilizing the technology of laptop and data projector to assist participation in the group process used to review and change items. The facilitator ensured that, for each question, a wide representation of perspectives was gathered before the final collaborative decision was electronically presented and then moving on to the next item or section.

Of the 86 questions in the 2003 version of the LRE tool made available to the project team, 65 questions were changed in some way, with 21 requiring major changes. While 8 new questions were developed, 2 were discarded. Adaptation of some concepts and language common to the United States school system to fit the new Australian cultural context was the main cluster of reasons for minor change. As examples, Student Success Teams in California were named as Special Needs Committee in this Queensland District, and LRE was changed to the more widely understood Inclusive Education . The ISC project aim for the LRE instrument to review inclusive practice with all students with special needs — with the emphasis on diversity and without restriction of a disability focus — was a more significant reason for change. New questions were triggered by one school’s response to the internal separation of the roles of principal and administration team and some resulting in item duplication.

The School Site Characteristics

In the second phase, the adapted tool was trialed in a local district primary school as part of a planned whole school review. The Government funded State School was situated in Brisbane, in an area that has continuing population and housing growth. The majority of families in the area own their home or townhouse, with a smaller number of families renting. Parents have high employment levels, with a high proportion self-employed or professional. A large number of cultures were represented in the school demography, consistent with other studies in the locality (Wang, Davies, Grimbeek, & Loke, 2004). With the student population mainly drawn from the local area, the demographic profile of a high socio-economic, multicultural community was reflected in the school community.

Enrolments of students with special needs

Students are generally well supported by their families, who have high educational expectations. The academic level of the students within the school is above the state average and like schools in the area.

Approximately 40% of students come from non-English speaking backgrounds, with 2% identified as indigenous (Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders). Hence, the school student body of 1,060 (Years 1 — 7) and 100 (Pre-school) is represented by approximately 56 nationalities, with the Chinese and Greek cultures predominant. In recent years the cultural mix has been enriched with an increased number of European, Tongan, Samoan, and Korean families joining the community. As a result, 83 students or 8% of the student population were identified as having needs related to ESL (English as a Second Language).

A Special Education Unit catering for 35 students with severe and identifiable disabilities such as Intellectual Impairment and Autistic Spectrum Disorder, has drawn additional students with special needs to the school. Over 150 students (15%) have been identified with having learning difficulties. While these students might not meet the criteria for support from the Special Education Teachers, families feel they may benefit from their expertise and the programs offered by the 1.4 Learning Support Teachers.

Leadership and staff

The school has been lead by a permanent administration team for the previous 6 years, with the female principal coming from a smaller neighbouring school in 1998. Three deputy principals each supervise an area of the school. The philosophy of the administration is very much a team approach with collaborative management strategies paramount in school operations.

Most staff members have taught at the school for many years, fostering continuity of teaching and learning and a strong culture of learning. The school workforce was made up of 108 teaching and non-teaching staff. The majority of the teaching staff had senior teaching status. Thus, the school had a rich resource of experienced and highly qualified professionals. Many of the ancillary staff were paraprofessionals with appropriate qualifications who receive regular professional development.

School planning overview

In the third phase, the target school administration was invited to participate in a school based trial of the LRE/ISC tool. The trial was welcomed because of the perceived value in terms of potential outcomes for the school and school community members. It was also recognised that it was timely to use the tool at this time. It seems that there was strong readiness for the use of such an instrument because of current difficulties with a number of students at the school, demands on Special Education Unit and staff in general, and the growing perception that there was leverage for the use of such a tool amongst staff.

A current school review process provided a school planning overview from 2003 to 2005. This overview provided a summary of the vision statement of the school, described the school community, learning and achievements; school environment (behaviour code, information and communication technologies, facilities, community resources); governance; and school workforce. Improvement priorities were also set in the core areas of learning, schools, and school workforce. With a new school review due to take place in 2005, it was perceived that the LRE tool could be adopted as part of this review process.

As part of the PAR approach, a small school team consisting of a deputy principal and special education staff, supported by a university facilitator was to decide how to trial the tool and how to review language terminology and context-relevant changes for school site use. The tool had previously been adapted to fit the broad state and district context. It was suggested that the tool needed to be produced electronically for this process to proceed. The membership of the school LRE team was expanded to include the principal, the “parent body” president, and another member of the teaching staff for wider representation on the school LRE team. The 92 questions in the LRE tool were then to be reviewed by each team member to recommend changes on the basis of language and context, to use track changes on the word document, and then to bring recommendations of changes to the tool to the school LRE team. Only minor modifications were required at the school site level, but this process was important for school representatives to feel part of the process.

Process

In line with process suggestions provided by the LRE self- assessment tool, four steps were undertaken.

Steps in Setting up the Review and Data Gathering Process

1. A team of 13 people formed the review team to cover all stakeholder positions and roles, including a parent, leadership team personnel, special education staff, learning support teachers, ESL teacher, lower and middle primary teachers, and district office representative. This representation also included those who were able to rate the questions; provide, or able to access, the data to support the rating; and to help to consider strategies/activities for improvement.

2. Deciding on a date for the team to meet for the first meeting to start the review was the next step. The team recognised the potential time demands to complete this process of evaluation and then identifying improvement activities.

3. The team developed a letter of invitation to nominated people to join the ISC Review. The letter outlined the aim of the ISC project, and asked their availability for various dates/times for the first meeting. It also stated that a number of meetings would be required. Upon agreeing to be involved, members were supplied with a hard copy of the LRE tool.

4. The team organised an appropriate venue and set up electronic processing with a laptop and data projector. One deputy principal, Chris Rawlins, assumed a co-facilitator role with the University consultant. She also took on the role to facilitate the collaborative responses to the three columns for each item and record the group decisions.

Outcomes

The School review team met on three occasions to proceed as a group to review how the school performed against the 92 questions across the six component areas. The tool provided instructions, and a recognition of the use of the tool to review school responses to students with diverse educational needs. It also provided definitions of terms used in the survey, and a rating scale from 5 (All of the time) to 1 (Never). Questions were organised into each of the 6 component areas, and the group considered and discussed questions one at a time and used a consensus-based approach to arrive at an agreed rating. The information supporting the rating was then provided for each decision, and improvement activities were identified. Table 2 illustrates an example of the decisions made by the group.

Table 2 A section of the adapted LRE tool with school group decisions

Upon completion of the questions, a scoring overview is provided, and the scores in each section of the six major topic areas were averaged. The topic average provided the team with an average score that assisted in determining the priority rating for each area and the opportunity for the team to identify possible improvement tasks through group discussion. Table 3 shows a completed version of the Site Summary sheet for this school.

This summary has prompted the administrative team and teachers to further develop their inclusive practices. Since the completion of the self-assessment tool and the identification of the self-improvement activities, the school has proceeded without the involvement of consultants from the university, a telling factor in terms of the aims of this process. Other self–development activities have been undertaken.

A review of support services within the school has been conducted in early 2005, with goals established to streamline these services leading to a maximisation of resources for students and teachers. Among the goals determined through this process are the following:

• Interruptions for students with special needs will be minimised, with scaffolded learning occurring in the classrooms. Minimal withdrawal will occur for specific programs with auditory perception components.
• The curriculum will be adapted across the year levels where necessary, with teachers considering the tri-level needs of students during the planning processes and modifications able to be made at a range of levels including the establishment of goals, modified learning experiences, modified assessment practices, and modified data collection.

Table 3. Site Summary Sheet

Six aims for self-improvement of the school in the future were identified by the school team.

1. Placing students with special needs in the classroom into levels for programming that will relate to the work they can achieve, and will give everyone a common language and understanding of their needs.

2. Creating individual work folders for students with special needs in categories of M1 (minor modification to classroom program), M2 (moderate), or M3 (major), will help identify learning goals for each student in the classroom.

3. Coordinating support programs will maximise teacher aide time for students to be included in the classroom programs, where achievable.

4. Having a whole school policy for the support of students with special needs so they can maximise access to the classroom program.

5. Teachers will plan units of work that reflect the whole school policy and demonstrate adaptations to the curriculum for students with special needs.

6. Reflecting and reviewing the coordinated approach for students with special needs will ensure best practices are being maximised and maintained.

Evaluation of the tool

Written responses about the tool and the process were obtained at each meeting from the majority of the team members, but brevity of the commentary made qualitative analysis of these responses unnecessary. Members of the team valued discussion generated during the process, which gave insight into the operations of the school and which highlighted its strengths and weaknesses. The tool was recognised as being a most valuable instrument in raising issues associated with inclusive practice, but the school team felt that both the tool and the meeting process could be improved.

Training was not provided to staff, apart from a brief introductory priming session. Yet it may be of benefit to provide a complete session before embarking on the evaluation process. To make the tool valuable in gaining positive outcomes, some members felt that a leadership guide or training would need to be added to the tool. However, this needs to be considered in the light of other competing demands on teacher time. If training is not provided, modifications to the tool may be required for other schools (without previous knowledge of the tool), so they can quickly implement the process and gain value from the tool and the process.

Many of the questions needed clarification through team discussion. The committee often felt reliant on the members who had originally participated in adapting the tool to state and district systems, since these members had a more thorough and deeper understanding of the tool and the intention of each item.

It was felt by many that questions were repetitive, resulting in similar responses. A few of the team felt that the same conclusions could have been gained with a shorter version of the tool. The language of the tool also needs to be more reader friendly, jargon-free, and succinct, with more terms clearly described in the beginning to facilitate parent and non-teacher involvement.

Some members of the committee felt that too much time was required to implement the process, and that the tool could be more streamlined and still gain the same outcomes.

Conditions necessary for successful use of the self-assessment tool

Other conditions need to be considered to ensure successful use of the self-assessment tool. Before implementing the tool, it was felt the experience level of the staff involved would need to be considered. This process worked well at this particular school which has stable staff and high performing student population, but other settings may experience more difficulty. Several indicators were identified prior to the commencement of implementing the tool:

• The willingness of the leadership team to engage in such reviews.
• The readiness to actively support and resource these activities (e.g. relieving teachers from class or duties, giving of personal time).
• The appropriate timing within the review process in the establishment of timelines, meeting dates and times.
• The commitment of staff to undertake a reform process.
• Aligning the tool with existing school review processes (such as the Triennial School Review).

Conclusions

Improvements in the adapted version of the tool, and in the process whereby it is used, can be made. For the target school in this trial, using the tool had positive outcomes and promoted plans for continued improvement. Staff became very focussed on intervention practices, and the review generated a number of improvement activities. This influence was reflected in the formulation of an intervention committee, the staff professional development discussions, the changing practices evidenced within the classrooms, and future plans for inclusive practice.

Due to our cultural heritage, the attitude toward difference by general Australians will often lead to indifference toward survey data, or implementation of specific projects such as this tool demands. This indifference is often reflected in government policies, initiatives, and funding of specific projects related to difference. There also exists a systemic issue of lack of leadership within the state and national educational contexts in relation to inclusive practices in schools. This tool, however, can provide districts and schools with a valuable strategy to take the leadership in improving schools, promoting inclusive practices, and providing educational opportunities for all students.

References

Anderson, J. L. (2003). School wide supports for inclusive education: Restructuring for effectiveness. In B. Bartlett, F. Bryer, and D. Roebuck (Eds.), Reimagining practice: Researching change. (Vol. 1, pp. 1-15). Brisbane, Australia: School of Cognition, Language, and Special Education, Griffith University.

Audit Scotland and HMIE (2003). Moving to mainstream: The inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Main report. Auditor General/Accounts Commission. www.audit-scotland.gov.uk. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Booth, T. Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L. (2000). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Manchester: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, Centre for Educational Needs, University of Manchester.

California LRE Self-Assessment and Continuous Improvement Activities (2000). Sacramento, CA: Special Education Division, California Department of Education.

Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education . Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2004). Validating the British Index for Inclusion for the Australian context: Stage one. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(2), 155-184.

Halvorsen, A. T., & Neary, T. (2001). Building inclusive schools: Tools & strategies for success.   Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

HMIE (2002). Count Us In: Achieving inclusion in Scottish schools. HMIE, www.hmie.gov.uk. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

HMIE (2004). How good is our school? Inclusion and equality Part 2 Evaluating education for pupils with additional support needs in mainstream schools. HMIE, www.hmie.gov.uk. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1994). Disability Discrimination Act, 1992 ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical and research foundation: A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive schooling. Baltimore, MD: Allegheny University of Health Sciences, Paul H. Brookes.

Peterson, J. M., & Hittie, M. M (2003). Inclusive teaching: Creating effective schools for all learners. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Rossman G.B., & Salzman, J. (1995). Evaluating inclusive education programs: A survey of current practice: Preliminary analysis and typology. New York: National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion.

Sailor, W. (Ed.) (2002). Whole school success and inclusive education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Thurlow, M., Vandercook, T., McDevitt, M., Medwetz, L. Nelson, M., Sauer, J., & Walz, L. (1999). District partnership approach to inclusion: A qualitative evaluation of impact. Minneapolis: Institute on Community Integration.

Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (2000).   Collaborative teaming: A powerful tool in school restructuring.   In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (2 nd ed., pp. 254-291).   Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Wang, H., Davies, M., Grimbeek, P., & Loke, K. (2004). Participation in community group educational activities: In B. Bartlett, F. Bryer, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), Educating: Weaving research into practice (Vol. 3, pp. 224-235). Brisbane, Australia: School of Cognition, Language, and Special Education, Griffith University.

Wolfensberger, W., & Nirje, B. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services . Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact