Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T17:55:33.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inclusion in action: One school's response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Susan Waltisbuhl
Susan Waltisbuhl*
Affiliation:
Monkland State School
Get access

Extract

The Monkland Integration Program (MIP) was designed to provide appropriate education for students of primary school age with various disabilities through a regular class program (Penn, Stephens & Quadrio, 1992). The group would progress through the school with their peers thus affording parents with a possible seven year placement at one school. The specialist teacher would be chiefly responsible for monitoring each placement, recommending modifications as necessary. Commonwealth funding would support the program both financially and through the allocation of an aide primarily for the group. Monkland's School Development Plan would incorporate the needs of this group also.

The paper by Penn et al. (1992) looked at the planning and implementation of the project from the organisational perspective, while this paper provides a report from the classroom teacher's perspective.

A ceiling for the total group was set at eight members with an option to use those places as full or part-time positions. This opened the program at Monkland to parents with children in other settings as an opportunity for social involvement with age-peers.

Four children arrived to begin school initially in Term one of 1991. They were enrolled to join a Year One/Two class with a population reflecting any other class yet containing some children particularly particularly recognised as good role models and some with learning difficulties. (Class total was 25 full-time pupils.) The class was staffed at this time by two teachers (one regular teacher and one specialist teacher), and fifteen hours/ week aide time.

Type
Field reports
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 3 , November 1993 , pp. 83 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamson, D., Cox, J., & Schuller, J. (1989). Collaboration/consolidation: Bridging the gap from resource room to regular classroom. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, (1–2), 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Mains treaming learning disabled students: The impact on regular education students and teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Boston, MA, 1990).Google Scholar
Carlbery, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14 (3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre, Y., Ward, J., Parmenter, T., & Nash, R. (1985). Principals' attitudes towards the integration of disabled children into regular schools. The Exceptional Child, 32 (3), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenfield, M.B. (1987). The first 30 years are the hardest: Notes from the yellow brick road. Young Children, 42 (3).Google Scholar
Doenau, S. (1984). Edging to integration: The Australian experience. Pennant Hills, NSW: Edvance.Google Scholar
Ferguson, R. (1991). The myth of special education Newsletter. Ministerial Advisory Committee on Curriculum Development, 3 (2), 18.Google Scholar
Fish, J. (1985). Special education: The way ahead. Bristol: Open University.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C., & Hart, M. (1990). Towards integration: Special needs in an ordinary school. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Harvey, D.H.P. (1985). Mainstreaming: Teachers' attitudes when they have no choice about the matter. The Exceptional Child, 32 (3), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herink, N., & Lee, P. (1985). Patterns of social interaction of mainstreamed preschool children: Hopeful news from the field. The Exceptional Child, 32 (3), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyser, Y., & Lessen, E. (1985). The efficacy of two training approaches on attitudes of prospective teachers toward mainstreaming. The Exceptional Child, 32 (3), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madge, S., Affleck, J., & Lowenbraun, S. (1990). Social effects of integrated classrooms and resource room regular class placements on elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23 (7), 439–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, G. (Ed.). (1989). Gentle teaching of the mentally retarded: A non-assertive approach to helping persons with mental retardation. New York: Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, C., & Stafford, K. (1988). Curriculum, practices and issues. (2nd Edition). Roseville, NSW: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Nowacek, J., & Saunders, S. (1989). A case study of an effective teacher in a suburban mainstreamed classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, 1989).Google Scholar
Penn, C., Stephens, P., & Quadrio, D. (1992). This is my school: Monkland Integration Project. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 1, 71–79.Google Scholar
Pickering, D. (1982) Special assistance program: A windfall for integration. The Australian Journal of Special Education, 6(1), 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queensland Department of Education, Division of Special Education, (1985). Early educational intervention handbook of issues and strategies. Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer.Google Scholar
Seed, P. (1988). Children with profound handicaps-Parents' views and integration. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Webb, L. (1977). Children with special needs in the infants' school. (5th Edition). Glasgow: William Collins Sons.Google Scholar