Questioning Secondary Inclusive Education: AreInclusive Classrooms Always Best for Students?

Ruth Elizabeth Tkachyk

Received: 17 April 2013 / Accepted: 4 June 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Educating students with special needs in inclusive settings has become a

priority for westernized governments as they strive to create more inclusive soci-

eties. While recognizing the societal benefits of inclusion, teachers and parents

question whether or not implementation of full inclusion will come at the expense of

learners’ individual needs. This is particularly true for students with cognitive

disabilities moving into the content-rich, peer-dominated environment of secondary

school. It will be maintained within this article that there remains a need for seg-

regated classrooms where students with mild cognitive disabilities can receive the

specialized programming and supports that they require in a low-stress environment.

Furthermore, educators should continue to prioritize the learning needs of all stu-

dents with disabilities when contemplating full inclusion. Modeling an inclusive

society should not mean inclusion at all costs, but considering what’s best for each

student and recognizing that one size does not fit all.

Keywords Cognitive disabilities � Inclusive education � Junior high �Special needs

Inclusion—a term that elicits emotion and rhetoric amongst teachers, parents,

administrators, politicians and crafters of policy. Despite the fact that inclusion has

been a topic of discussion ever since I began teaching 25 years ago, it continues to

attract debate—particularly since the Alberta government published their Setting the

Direction Framework in 2009, raising the expectations for schools to provide more

inclusive learning environments. Although the intent of the document is to provide a

framework which will allow all students, regardless of diagnosis or special

R. E. Tkachyk (&)

Grasslands Public Schools, Brooks, AB, Canada

e-mail: rt5315@telus.net

123

Interchange

DOI 10.1007/s10780-013-9193-z

education code to access the supports they require, the vision states: ‘‘all students

will have equitable opportunity to be included in the typical learning environment or

program of choice’’ (Alberta Education 2009, p. 5). As a result, there exists an

unspoken concern amongst many teachers that we are moving toward a system

where there are fully inclusive classrooms.

Prior to my current teaching assignment, I taught in a K-1 school that focused on

early intervention, where full inclusion was the norm. Although it was sometimes

difficult to integrate students with severe behaviors, it was the general consensus

that the social benefits far outweighed the occasional disruptions. It is my firm belief

that children without special needs have the most to gain from inclusion since an

inclusive environment models tolerance and acceptance. Alberta is not the only

government working to make schools more inclusive for students with special

needs. Legislation in other Canadian provinces and first world countries—most

notably the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 in the United

States and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 in the United

Kingdom—has been enacted in order to develop policy that strives to make schools

and classrooms more inclusive in an effort to build a more inclusive society. It was

not until I moved into a new teaching assignment working in a separate program

with cognitively impaired students at the junior high level that I began to examine

my beliefs regarding inclusion and found myself questioning whether or not full

inclusion would always be best for students. Initially, I felt outrage that this group of

students, myself included, was to exist on the periphery of school culture. I focused

on their socially inappropriate behaviors and was convinced that they needed to be

fully included in regular classrooms in order to observe and adopt age-appropriate

behaviors and interactions. After observing my students in the classroom and within

the school for the past eighteen months, however, I have learned more about their

unique learning needs and find myself arguing against full inclusion—much to my

surprise!

Inconclusive Research

My experience this past year has taught me how easy it is assume that a particular

policy is worth pursuing based on one’s own narrow experience and also that the

bureaucrats driving policy will influence decisions at the classroom level without,

possibly, having any practical knowledge of the contexts in which that policy will

play out. Until I encountered students with cognitive disabilities in a secondary

environment, I just assumed that inclusion in mainstream classrooms was the

answer to creating an equitable school society. While there is a plethora of research

that supports the practice of inclusion, there is an equal amount of research which

points to detrimental effects on students (Lindsay 2003). One of the biggest issues is

that inclusion is a ‘‘complex concept and its manifestations in practice are many and

various’’ (Lindsay 2003, p. 271) and there is no clear interpretation of what

inclusion should entail (Leyser and Kirk 2004). Inclusion can mean inclusive

schools (which have been the norm in rural Alberta since I began my career) all the

way to inclusive classrooms where there are no separate classrooms or pullout

R. E. Tkachyk

123

programs for students with disabilities. Lindsay (2003) also points out that this

complexity has made researching inclusion problematic due to the difficulty in

‘‘operationalizing variables’’ (p. 6) when conducting research. Perhaps Fore et al.

(2008) described the issue best when stating: ‘‘The only certainty regarding the

effects of class placement is that there is no consensus’’ (Fore et al. 2008, p. 56).

What is a Mild Cognitive Disability?

When I first stepped into my specialized classroom, I was under the impression that

a mild cognitive disability was just another type of learning disability. Many

teachers without first-hand experience with such students would probably assume

the same. In the primary grades the lines can be blurred when it comes to diagnoses

of learning disabilities since children develop at such different rates in all domains.

It has been my experience that psychologists—primarily because of these

developmental variations—are reluctant to diagnose a disability until a child has

reached grade three and demonstrates a continued lack of progress in one or more

areas of learning. As I searched for strategies that would help my students improve

their literacy and numeracy skills—my prime responsibility as a teacher—I came to

the realization that this was an enormous undertaking.

Throughout my career, I had learned that using the term ‘‘IQ’’ was discouraged

since it has been associated with the potential negative impact of self-fulfilling

prophecies. Upon examining the components of an IQ test, however, it becomes

apparent that having a mild cognitive disability is completely different from having

a learning disability. Students with specific learning disabilities typically score

average or above on norm-referenced cognitive subtests, however score very low on

norm-referenced assessments in reading and/or math. Therefore, it is the significant

gap between cognitive ability and achievement, which usually indicates a learning

disability (WISC-IV: Clinical use and interpretation, 2006; Learning Disabilities

Association of Alberta n.d.). Students with mild cognitive impairments, on the other

hand, typically score in the low or extremely low range on most or all cognitive

subtests in the areas of working memory, verbal comprehension, perceptual

reasoning and processing speed. These scores indicate a global impairment in

thought and reasoning processes. Bouck (2007) asserts that it is a common

misconception that students with mild cognitive disabilities are no different than

students with other mild disabilities and that they can be taught and assessed using

standard curriculum with various accommodations. The reality, however, is that

characteristics of students with mild mental impairment include poor

generalization skills; difficulty with transfer; limited attention span; tendency

to be easily distracted; significant difficulties in academics; failure to achieve

academically at their chronological age, and late acquisition of skills in

reading, writing, spelling and mathematics. (Bouck 2007, p. 81)

The label of mild cognitive disability, in itself, is misleading since ‘‘students with

mild mental impairment do not have mild needs’’ (Bouck 2007, p. 81). For example,

a student with a diagnosed reading disability and an average to above average IQ

Questioning Secondary Inclusive Education

123

score should be able to handle curriculum at grade level provided they are given

accommodations such as a reader or a scribe or extra time. A student with a mild

cognitive impairment, on the other hand, struggles with grade level curriculum due

to their difficulty in navigating the problem solving and reasoning processes that are

necessary to achieve those outcomes. My students have most work read to them, but

have great difficulty answering basic comprehension questions about what they

have heard. As evidenced in the IQ test, they score extremely low in verbal

reasoning. I worked with a student last year who could read and spell words at

approximately a grade seven level, but could only comprehend at a grade one or two

level. This student had an excellent visual memory, but could not understand

context. Another example of this was their quick recall of math basic facts. This

student knew the multiplication tables, but could not tell you whether 10 was greater

or less than 5. These examples serve to illustrate what a mild cognitive disability

looks like in a real classroom.

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is currently a very popular ‘‘buzz’’ word in education. The

following is a quotation taken from the Alberta Education document Making a

Difference, which was published in 2010 as a teacher resource. The resource is

meant to assist teachers in planning for and assessing a diverse range of students.

Increasing the capacity of teachers to practice more effectively in inclusive

environments is viewed as one of the solutions for making schools and classrooms

more inclusive.

The range of instructional options and supports in place in a differentiated

classroom will address many of the unique learning needs of students with

disabilities. In addition, teachers who use a differentiated approach may be

more willing and able to further adjust instruction to meet the needs of

students with more intensive learning disabilities. (Alberta Education 2010,

p. 116)

Undoubtedly, differentiated instruction enables students of many abilities to access

curriculum and be successful in achieving the outcomes. In my school, for example,

language arts teachers are using layered curriculum with much success. It is

important to recognize, however, that ‘‘differentiated instruction supports and

strengthens the curriculum; it does not replace it’’ (Alberta Education 2010, p. 4).

The assumption with differentiated instruction is that it allows students with

disabilities to more successfully access the standardized curriculum. As mentioned,

students with cognitive disabilities are often unable to engage in the problem

solving skills necessary to achieve those curricular outcomes and that is why their

programming is so significantly modified. Differentiated instruction is an excellent

way of making teaching more effective for many students; however, the challenges

faced by students with cognitive disabilities require more intensive modification and

support. These students are at the highest end on a continuum of needs and

therefore, ‘‘differentiated instruction may provide some social benefits but the

R. E. Tkachyk

123

learning needs of this group of students go beyond what a differentiated instruction

approach alone could provide’’ (Alberta Education 2010, p. 118). The search for

recent research examining students with cognitive impairments in fully inclusive

secondary classrooms resulted in few examples. However, a study by Wilson et al.

(2011) did find that students achieved better outcomes in an environment of full

inclusion with co-teaching than their counterparts in pullout programs. Unfortu-

nately, the average full-scale IQ score of the students in the study was 89; therefore

they would not fit the criteria for mild cognitive impairment. In my own experience,

students scoring in the 50–70 ranges are considered to have a mild cognitive

disability and, therefore, generalizing the results of the study to that particular

population is impossible.

Inclusion and Socialization

Upon arrival in my new teaching assignment, my first impression was that my

students were suffering from social isolation. Based primarily on my experience

teaching younger children, my belief was that full integration would provide them a

better opportunity to participate in the larger peer group. A common argument for

inclusion is that students with problem behavior or social deficits will benefit from

mixed groupings because they can learn by observing more socially acceptable

behaviors. There is a variety of research disputing that argument. Peetsma et al.

(2001), in a study of students with mild mental retardation (MMR) and learning and

behavioral difficulties (LBD), found that although inclusion appeared to have a

positive effect on cognitive improvement that this was not the case with

psychosocial development. This coincides with the arguments of Bouck (2006,

2007), Farmer (2000) and Vaughan et al. (2001) who concluded that merely placing

students in an inclusive setting does not solve the problem of social isolation. They

found that students with disabilities experienced low social acceptance whether or

not they were integrated. ‘‘Inclusion is a complex proposition that requires more

than helping a youth develop a superficial friendship with a prosocial peer or

increasing classmates’ tolerance and acceptance of disabilities and behavioral

differences’’ (Farmer 2000, p. 2010). A research analysis by Koster et al. (2009)

reveals that several researchers found ‘‘pupils with special needs are teased, abused

and ignored in mainstream settings, which is in fact harmful to their self image.

(Koster et al. 2009, p. 118)’’ This review also reveals what most of us already may

have suspected—that students with special needs generally occupy a lower social

status than their peers. This even appears to be true for those with learning

disabilities who, while showing similar adaptive functioning in a group setting, are

still viewed as lower in their social standing (Estell et al. 2008). My own

observations over the past 18 months confirm what the research shows. My students

exist on the periphery of school culture and when they socialize with other students

in the school, it is usually with mainstreamed students who also experience learning

difficulties and social marginalization. Those who work in junior high settings can

attest to the influence of the peer group, rather than any integrative groupings, in

shaping the social interactions of students.

Questioning Secondary Inclusive Education

123

Inclusion and Curriculum

Inclusion, in my experience, tends to be more successful both academically and socially

at the lower grade levels. As discussed, the ever-increasing importance of the peer

group as a child matures chronologically is a factor in the decreasing success of

inclusive practices. Another factor is the changing curriculum. Avramidis and Norwich

(2002) point to the general belief that an emphasis on subject matter is less compatible

with inclusion than a focus on social development. As a student enters secondary

school, there is a marked difference in focus. Students are grouped with teachers

according to the subject they are learning. This is one example of the transition from

focusing on social and learning skills to focusing on learning and retaining increasing

amounts of subject specific content. Even though there is a scarcity of research on

inclusive secondary classrooms compared with inclusive elementary classrooms, ‘‘one

of the most obvious differences between elementary and secondary classrooms is the

heavy emphasis on content knowledge in the latter’’ (Mastropieri and Scruggs 2001,

p. 267). The pace of content presentation is problematic in inclusive classrooms, and

‘‘although some important variables for successful inclusive teaching at the secondary

level have been identified, the effectiveness of specific interventions is inconsistent’’

(Mastropieri and Scruggs 2001, p. 272). There is simply more content to be covered at

the secondary level and secondary teachers expect students are increasingly capable of

directing and being responsible for their own learning. Furthermore, the demand for

expository reading and comprehension increases in secondary grades and this puts

students with disabilities at a distinct disadvantage (Berkeley et al. 2011; Scruggs et al.

2010). In a study of secondary math teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, DiSimone

and Parmar (2006) found that teachers experienced a lack of knowledge of the learning

needs of students with disabilities and were seeking age-appropriate strategies for

providing instructional modifications. They indicated the need for more knowledge and

more time to collaborate with colleagues. The majority of general education teachers or

curriculum specialists have little special education training or experience and find

themselves unable to provide for the needs of those students because of a knowledge

gap and the lack of time due to the pressures of presenting and assessing curricular

content within a specific time frame.

Teacher Attitudes

Resistance to inclusion is a touchy subject. No educator wants to be accused of

discriminating against students with disabilities. However, it is difficult to ignore the

reality that inclusion presents more challenges for teachers as students move up

through the system. In an international literature review, Mazurek and Winzer (2011)

found that: ‘‘while teachers typically exhibit positive attitudes toward the principles of

inclusion, some feel under siege and unprepared to comply with the broad array of

requirements’’ (p. 5). Personal observations have found this to be particularly true of

core subjects at the secondary level where the focus is on preparing students to meet the

requirements of provincial achievement tests. In my school, the students I teach with

mild cognitive disabilities make up only two percent of the total school population.

R. E. Tkachyk

123

There are many more students with specific learning disabilities and also those with

cognitive impairments (lacking parental permission to enter a specialized program)

who are fully included in mainstream classrooms. My own casual observations have

indicated that even though teachers have demographically inclusive classrooms, they

may not be embracing inclusive practices. This is backed up by research indicating that

secondary teachers are not as positive about inclusion as their elementary counterparts

(Mastropieri and Scruggs 2001) and that ‘‘there is no evidence of acceptance of a

policy of total inclusion’’ (Lindsay 2007, p. 13). A literature review by Avramidis and

Norwich (2002) also concluded that:

Teachers, although positive toward the general philosophy of inclusive

education, do not share a total inclusion approach and that there is evidence to

suggest that in the case of more severe learning needs and behavioral difficulties,

teachers hold negative attitudes to the implementation of inclusion (p. 142).

To be fair, these negative attitudes may not be the result of discriminatory beliefs.

Teacher attitudes towards inclusion are often simply the result of trying to manage

classrooms of 25–30 students with few supports. In a study of 700 teachers focusing on

inclusive education and teacher burnout, Talmor et al. (2005) found that support for

teachers in providing for special needs students in their classrooms was lacking. With

regard to the students entering their classrooms: ‘‘Teachers seemed to feel that they

hardly had any information at all, and once the student was enrolled in their classroom,

the help they received was minimal’’ (p. 222). It would be fair to speculate that the

administration in these schools may have provided what they felt was adequate

support, but it is significant that the teachers’ perception was the opposite. In the same

study, the authors identified de-personalization as a symptom of burnout. It is worth

noting that they found a positive correlation between the proportion of students with

special needs in the classroom and the level of de-personalization. Furthermore,

teachers who taught higher grade levels experienced greater rates of de-personali-

zation, leaving the authors to conclude that the combination of older students and

inclusive practices contributes more to teacher burn-out (Talmor et al. 2005). There is

no question that most teachers do not consciously set out to exclude any students,

however, without the necessary classroom supports for inclusion this may be

happening by default. In implementing inclusion, ‘‘it seems imperative that the

process is carefully planned and well supported’’ (Avramidis and Norwich 2002,

p. 142). In Alberta, the planning process behind Action on Inclusion and Setting the

Direction was extremely detailed and attempted to gather input from all stakeholders.

The supports that are necessary for successful implementation of inclusive practices,

however, may have been negatively affected by shortfalls in funding which has

resulted in higher class numbers and fewer support personnel available to assist in

planning for adapted and modified programs.

Parent Attitudes

Parents have had a significant role to play in advocating for their children with

special needs to be educated in inclusive environments. When Alberta Education

Questioning Secondary Inclusive Education

123

began the process of reforming the delivery of education to students with special

needs, Alberta parents were consulted and asked how they felt schools could better

serve the needs of those students. According to the government document, Inclusive

Education: ‘‘The steering committee listened to Albertans and recognized that a

two-stream education system is neither effective nor just’’ (Government of Alberta,

Alberta Education 2012). While it may be assumed that parents always advocate for

full inclusion, it has been my experience in working with a variety of parents that

they simply want their children to receive programming that will respect their

capacity to learn—which includes appropriate adaptations or modifications and

appropriate challenges—and their need to be included in the same school activities

that all students enjoy. Parents of students in my current program have commented

on how their children’s stress levels and negative behaviors decreased after being

placed in an environment where they could receive appropriate programming with

positive supports that allowed them to experience success for the first time in their

schooling. A literature review by Leyser and Kirk (2004) found that many parents of

special needs students are questioning the appropriateness of inclusion at the

secondary level. Their review found that parents of students with mild to moderate

cognitive impairments have concerns about their children’s progress under inclusion

and worry that inclusive programs are not providing for their special needs. Parents

were reported to worry about social isolation, which is ironic when you consider

that proponents of inclusion point to increased social participation for students in

fully inclusive classrooms. Their own study of 437 parents of special needs children

supported the prior research in finding that parents were worried about social

isolation as well as ‘‘the quality of instruction and the possible loss of needed

services’’ (Leyser and Kirk 2004, p. 281). Parents may have good reason to worry

that programming would suffer with the advent of fully inclusive classrooms. A

large study by Goodman et al. (2011) found that ‘‘with increased emphasis on

meeting the standard curriculum goals (mainly goals to permit students to move to

colleges and universities) other life skills, vocational, and prevocational courses are

unavailable for many of the students who need them’’ (p. 248). The authors argue

that there need to be choices for students of all abilities, since not all students are

destined for post-secondary education. In our efforts to build a more inclusive

society, ‘‘we need to ensure that there is a dual approach focusing on both the rights

of children and the effectiveness of their education’’ (Lindsay 2003, p. 10).

Best for Kids

When I began my journey into the world of cognitive impairment, I was fully

convinced that segregated programs were unjust and were the cause of my students

occupying a space on the periphery of school culture. My experience with inclusive

programming within a primary school setting led me to criticize what I felt to be an

outdated program where traditionally marginalized students become even more

marginalized by virtue of their classroom placement. My gradual realization that the

unique needs of my students are, given current circumstances of educational funding

and supports, best met in a segregated classroom has caused me to question whether

R. E. Tkachyk

123

or not the concept of fully inclusive classrooms at the secondary level is the answer

for many students with learning difficulties—not just those with global cognitive

impairments. Many researchers point to the complexities of both secondary

education and special education and the need for further research into inclusive

practices due to the paucity of existing research and inconsistency of those findings

(Estell et al. 2008; Lindsay 2003; Mastropieri and Scruggs 2001). Additionally,

even though students classified with learning disabilities are of normal or high

intelligence, their difficulties with the processes necessary for reading comprehen-

sion and the increased demand for expository reading at the secondary level

(Berkeley et al. 2011; Scruggs et al. 2010) causes me to question whether or not full

inclusion can work—unless consistent supports are in place.

The idea that fully inclusive classrooms will correct an injustice towards students

with learning difficulties does not take into account the complexities of learning and

thought processes and the need for many students with disabilities to learn in

environments that fully support their cognitive and social–emotional needs.

Although the intent of inclusive classrooms may be to increase tolerance and

acceptance and send the message that no student should be treated differently

because of a disability, the fact remains that full inclusion will only work if there are

enough supports in place for teachers and students allowing students with learning

difficulties to receive the specialized programming necessary for them to experience

success and reach their greatest potential. Each year, my program receives students

who have managed to progress through the grades in mainstream classrooms despite

their learning issues. They struggle through grade seven, without the learning

supports they have become accustomed to, having shut down completely or become

serious behavior concerns when their parents make the decision to move them into a

specialized program. Once in my classroom, I have witnessed their increasing levels

of comfort, confidence and desire to come to school as they have left the stress of

the mainstream behind them. A young man in my classroom, who spent last year in

a constant state of anger, is finally beginning to accept feedback and is spending less

time putting others down as a way to increase his feelings of self-worth. He recently

comforted a classmate who was emotionally distraught, which solidified my belief

that he is in the right place. As I contemplate this student’s trajectory had he

remained in the mainstream, my final thoughts are: rather than putting all of our

resources into inclusion at all costs, we need to recognize that it may not always

work for all students at every level and we may create greater equity by using our

resources to explore the strategies and configurations that work best for kids.

References

Alberta Education. (2009). Setting the direction framework. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education. (2010). Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning needs with differentiated

instruction. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature.

European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147. doi:10.1080/0885625021012956.

Berkeley, S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2011). Reading comprehension strategy instruction

and attribution retraining for secondary students with learning and other mild disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 18–32. doi:10.1177/0022219410371677.

Questioning Secondary Inclusive Education

123

Bouck, E. C. (2006). How educational placements impact classroom interactions: Experiences in six

secondary students with mild mental impairment. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41(1), 4–14.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost.

Bouck, E. C. (2007). Lost in translation: Educating secondary students with mild mental impairment.

Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 79–87. doi:10.1177/10442073070180020401.

DiSimone, J. R. & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about inclusion of

students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 98–110.

Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost.

Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (2008). Peer groups,

popularity, and social preference: Trajectories of social functioning among students with and

without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 5–14. doi:10.1177/002221940

7310993.

Farmer, T. W. (2000). Misconceptions of peer rejection and problem behavior: Understanding aggression

in students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 194–208. doi:10.1177/

07419350002100401.

Fore, C., I. I. I., Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M. D., Boon, R. T., & Smith, S. (2008). Academic achievement and

class placement in high school: Do students with learning disabilities achieve more in one class

placement than another? Education and Treatment of Children, 31(1), 55–72. doi:10.1353/etc.0.0018.

Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion and graduation

rates: What are the outcomes? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(4), 241–252. doi:10.1177/

1044207310394449.

Government of Alberta, Alberta Education. (2012). Inclusive education. Retrieved from: http://

education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/inclusion/about.aspx.

Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & van Houten, E. (2009). Being part of the peer group: A literature

study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 13(2), 117–140. doi:10.1080/13603110701284680.

Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluation inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors

influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,

51(3), 271–285. doi:10.1080/1034912042000259233.

Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education,

30(1), 3–12. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost.

Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming.

The British Psychological Society, 77, 1–24. doi:10.1348000709906X156881.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 24, 265–274. doi:10.2307/1511115.

Mazurek, K. & Winzer, M. (2011). Teacher attitudes toward inclusive schooling: Themes from the

international literature. Education and Society, 29(1), 5–25. Abstract retrieved from: http://

web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost.

Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils’

development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2), 125–135. doi:10.1080/

00131910125044.

Prifitera, A., Saklofske, D. H., & Weiss, L. G. (Eds.). (2005). WISC-IV: Clinical use and interpretation.

Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. E. (2010). Do special education

interventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special

Education, 31(6), 437–449. doi:10.1177/0741932508327465.

Talmor, R., Reiter, S., & Feigin, N. (2005). Factors relating to regular education teacher burnout in

inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(2), 215–229. doi:10.1080/

088562500055735.

Vaughan, S., Elbaum, B., & Boardman, A. G. (2001). The social functioning of students with learning

disabilities: Implications for inclusion. Exceptionality, 9(1&2), 47–65. doi:10.1080/09362835.2001.

9666991.

Wilson, G. L., Kim, S. A., & Michaels, C. A. (2011). Factors associated with where secondary students

with disabilities are educated and how they are doing. The Journal of Special Education, 20(10),

1–14. doi:10.1177/0022466911411575.

Learning Disability. (n.d.). In Learning Disabilities Association of Alberta. Retrieved from: http://

www.ldalberta/downloads/definition-of-ld.

R. E. Tkachyk

123