psychological ramificaitons of "full inclusion" within our nation's public schools, The

In a recent paper Parish and Boyd (in press) asked, "If every child is very special, then what are 'special children' They answered this question by stating, "These are the children that, for whatever reason, have to go through life with the understanding that they have some disability or condition that sets them apart from other children Does this difference have to be spotlighted, however, or can it be dealt with like we would deal with any other peculiarity that might exist within or between students? Well, that depends. You see, the disability is both real and perceived, but one is not necessarily the same as the other. For instance, in the movie "Forrest Gump," Forrest was depicted as mentally retarded but he failed to understand that that was the case. Hence, Forrest reached heights that few ever achieve. Of course, you could say that it was due to his mother's efforts, or the girl that seemed to care for him, but it really culminated in what Forrest believed of himself. After all, he believed he could achieve, and in the words of Henry Ford, "If you think you can, or you think you can, you're absolutely right." So mental retardation may have been a factor in Forrest's life, but he never dwelled upon it or let it get him down. Rather, he just kept going (like the "Energizer Rabbit"), for he realized he was not at responsible for what happened to him, but that is be was responsible for the way he dealt with what happened u, him (Parish, 1987).

Of course, "no man is an island", and that applies to Forrest Gump and every other child with a disability too. Therefore, we need to also examine the possible impact of others on their lives. For instance, teachers can play a key role in helping students to understand themselves and benefit from the circumstances they find themselves in. If it were not so, what would have happened to Helen Keller? Teachers and ancillary personnel, however, need m examine the following:

1) Their picture books (i.e., their expectations of each student),

2) Their lenses(i.e., their values, beliefs, prejudices),

3) Their playbooks (i.e., their actions; past, present, & future).

You see, it is in these areas that teachers, either knowingly or unknowingly, may destroy their students. For if they have a bad attitude toward a student, or if they display impatient or hostile behavior toward a student, many others, including the student in question, may become aware the situation. According to DeBruyn (1991), the student body of a school is simply a reflection of the staff at that school. In other words, the students are like the clay called "Silly Putty", and like that putty, become a carbon copy of that which they see.

To date, many studies have discovered that teachers generally harbor negative attitudes toward their students with disabilities (e.g., Green, Kappes, & Parish, 1979; Parish, Dyck & Kappes, 1979; Parish, Menuey, & Knowles, 1994), and that such negativism will only give rise to more negativism. Consequently, laws have been passed, and judicial decisions have been made in order to overcome these attitudinal and behavioral problems that come when people possess the "wrong" pictures or perceptions of others, and act accordingly.

Interestingly, however, laws alone are unlikely to overcome teachers' and students' negative attitudes. What might make the difference, however, is how we choose to focus on individuals. For instance, teachers and students may choose to focus on the notion that one stunt is mentally retarded, while another student has a learning disability. Well, in so doing, we may more likely concentrate more on that difference, to the possible exclusion of other important information. More specifically, according to Parish and Boyd (in press), all children share a core of concerns or needs for such things as survival, love and belonging, power, freedom, and fun. Notably, though, around the perimeter of this co of needs are secondary attributes like mentally retarded, physically handicapped, and learning disabled. Well, when teachers, students, and others focus on the secondary attributes, they could easily miss the more critical core needs or attributes. When this happens, students with disabilities may believe that they are inferior because they are so different, or that they are incapable of doing as well as others. Thus, findings have shown that programs for learning disabled children, instead of helping these children in various ways, can actually diminish their performance in intelligence, reading and math (e.g., Wigle, White, & Parish, 1989).

But a students really so much alike? Well, according to studies by Burden and Parish (1983) and Parish and Morgan (1986), exceptional students and normal students were found to describe themselves very similarly. In another study by Parish, Baker, Arheart, and Adamchak (1980), it was also found that exceptional students maintained positive attitudes toward themselves-just like their normal peers-but that both groups were likely to perceive their exceptional peers more negatively. Finally, according to the findings reported by Parish and Copeland (1978), exceptional students, like normal students, maintained equally positive self-concepts, but their teachers failed to see that this was so. Consequently, when asked to indicate how they thought their students perceived themselves, they attributed to them a kind of "pecking order", with normal students thought to be most positive, followed by physically handicapped students, learning disabled students, and finally, emotionally disturbed students. How unfortunate it is that so many teachers fail to understand how their students perceive themselves, and how they all thirst and hunger for the same core needs.

Can teachers and other ancillary personnel a overcome these obstacles that they might create for themselves through heir own negative attitudes and actions? Well, according to Newberry and Parish (1987), the answer appears to be "yes", but only if they want to. More specifically, the secret to a successful inclusion program is in those in authority permitting or inviting exceptional students to join them, rather than having these students forced upon them. Moreover, teachers may even serve as a needed support system of their exceptional students when these students are experiencing parental divorce and/or remarriage, at least that's what seemed to occur for a group of learning disabled students in a study reported by Boyd & Parish (1985).

How can teachers achieve such great results, and make the full inclusion process be successful? Well, the answer lies in focusing on all students "core needs" more, and helping them to actually succeed at fulfilling these needs. What follows are some essential inclusions for every teacher's picture book and I playbook:

According to Parish (1992), students will more likely listen M their teachers (and place them in their "Quality Worlds"; see Glasser, 1990) when-

1. Teachers maintain flexibility and effectively deal with each student's core needs.

(a) Love and Belonging-Maintains positive attitudes and acts like a friend (i.e., a friend is someone who helps you to like yourself).

(b) Power-Is highly credible, strives to excel, &/or helps others to do likewise.

(c) Freedom-Offers choices and not ultimatums.

(d) Fun-Entertains, injects humor, etc.

2. When teachers share pictures (i.e., "Quality Worlds) in common with their students.

3. When teachers set the proper example and approaches students or topics enthusiastically.

4. When teachers are sustained by students' parents &/or peers.

While the strategies noted above should be beneficial for all students, there are also some strategies that are specifically intended to help students with special needs. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Teachers can prepare children for the arrival of a disabled youngster and encourage them a assist him or her (Berk, 1991).

2 Bender(1986-1987) recommends that before disabled children are mainstreamed, that they need to receive intensive social skills training sessions in order to enhance their social and communication skills.

3. Disabled children, involved extensively with cooperative projects with their peers, are generally more widely accepted by all concerned (Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1984).

As noted in Parish and Boyd (in press), it is peculiar that teachers often believe that, as they o these thins suggested to facilitate the assimilation of exceptional children into their classrooms, that such actions will only benefit the exceptional students, but few others beyond that. In actuality, however, all should benefit from such efficient transactions since they all should learn to bet understand one another-both their differences and (most importantly) their commonalities. In addition, of course, everyone will more likely develop some effective interpersonal skills that will benefit all involved for a lifetime. Unfortunately, however, none of these things will occur on accident but will only occur when we (as teachers) decide to make it happen. This, then, is the essence of a successful full inclusion program.

References

Bender, W.H. (1986-1987). Effective educational practices in the mainstream setting: Recommended model for evaluation of mainstream teacher classes. Journal of Special Education, 24 475-487.

Berk, L.A. (1991). Child development Second edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyd, T., & Parish, T. (1985). An examination of academic achievement (among LD and non-LD children) in light of familial configuration. Education, 106, 228-230.

Burden, P., & Parish, T. (1983). Exceptional and normal children's descriptors of themselves. Education 104, 204-206.

DeBruyn, R. (1991). Time to recharge. The Master Teacher, 22(23).

Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. New York: Harper & Row.

Green, S., Kappes, B., & Parish, T. (1979). Attitudes of educators toward handicapped and non-handicapped children. Psychological Reports, 44, 829-830.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Maruyama, G. (1984). Goal interdependence and interpersonal attraction in heterogeneous classrooms. A meta-analysis. In N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (Eds.) Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 187-212). New York: Academic Press.

Newberry, M., & Parish, T. (1987). Enhancement of attitudes toward exceptional children through social interaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 59-62.

Parish, T.S. (1987). The family and the environment in V. Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (eds.) Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 168-183). New York: Pergamon Press.

Parish, T.S. (1992). Ways of assessing and enhancing student motivation. Journal of Reality Therapy, 11 (2), 27-36.

Parish, T.S., Baker, S., Arheart, K., & Adamchak, P. (1980). Normal and exceptional children's attitudes toward themselves and one another. Journal of Psychology, 104, 249-253.

Parish, T.S., & Boyd, D.A. (in press). Current models of special education. In L. Litwack (Ed.) Reality Therapy control theory and special education.

Parish, T., & Copeland, T. (1978). Teachers' and students' attitudes in mainstreamed classrooms. Psychological Reports, 43, 54.

Parish, T., Dyck, N., & Kappes, B. (1979). Stereotypes concerning normal and handicapped children. Journal of Psychology 02, 63-70.

Parish, T.S., Menuey, M.D., & Knowles, C. (1994). An investigation of teachers' attitudes toward gifted and handicapped students. Reading Improvement, 30, 250-251.

Parish, T., & Morgan, H. (1986). Ascriptions by handicapped and nonhandicapped children to themselves, normal children and handicapped children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 279-280.

Wigle, S., White, W., & Parish T. (1989). A longitudinal comparison of high IQ and low IQ students. Reading Improvement, 30, 282-285.

Copyright Project Innovation Winter 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved