Monday, October 7, 2013

Mainstreaming v. Special School Placement for Students with ASD

This week, the article I read focused on a study completed by British psychologists on whether mainstreaming is truly the best practice for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. As the article states, about 60 percent of students with ASD in the UK are placed in mainstreamed educational settings (Reed, Osborne, & Waddington, 2012, p.750). Many supporters of mainstreaming argue that ASD students should be placed in general education settings as frequently as possible particularly because of the social development benefits due to modeling by peers.  However, the authors of the study argue that, for students with ASD in particular, studies "have shown significant improvements in social skills for children placed in special placement" rather than general education placements and even that "several studies have shown particularly poor performance for children with ASD placed in mainstream schools" (Reed et al., 2012, p. 751). The authors of the article argue that, "for a population with ASD, it appears that social interactions may well be the domain that is most vulnerable to negative impact by mainstream placement" due to "problems with teacher training," "unrealistic teacher expectations," and "the impact of parent confidence and stress on their children’s performance" (Reed et al., 2012, p. 751). They believe that these issues, resulting from a mainstreamed placement, result in higher levels of stress and challenging behaviors for students with ASD. To test out their beliefs, the researchers administered questionnaires to students with ASD, attending both specialized and general education schools, and their parents in the beginning of the school year and then gave the same questionnaire nine months later. The questionnaire measured the students' strengths and weaknesses, as well as their adaptive behavior. The results showed that "children placed in special schools made greater improvements in their behaviour problems" and while "children with ASD can make progress in areas of adaptive behaviours when placed in mainstream schools, they do not make greater progress than children placed in special schools in socialisation" (Reed et al., 2012, p. 759). 

I found this article to be particularly interesting because of my current position as a paraeducator in a specialized school setting. At Elim Christian School, we have many students with Autism that, due to severe communication or behavior issues, cannot be mainstreamed into a general education setting. These students display many of the characteristics described in our textbook, such as "significant limitations in expressive and receptive language," "difficulties in social reciprocity," and " repetitive, stereotypical, and ritualistic behaviors," however many to an extreme degree (McLeskey, Rosenberg, & Westling, 2013, p. 113). Many of these students also exhibit the many of the challenging behaviors listed in the Autism Speaks toolkit, including aggressive and self-injurious behaviors. Due to my experience working with these students, I understand why the least-restrictive environment does not always mean a general education setting. Many school districts do not have the level of training, staff, or specific resources needed to educate and keep these students safe. As the Autism Speaks toolkit outlined, students with ASD can have episodes that escalate into emergency situations and it may take a team of staff to safely and successfully execute a crisis plan. Specialized school settings, such as Elim, can also adapt the environment specifically for students with ASD. At Elim Christian School, we have the ACE, or Autism Comprehensive Educational, Program that is housed in a special wing of the school where everything from the type of lightbulbs used to the playground outside are specifically tailored for students with ASD and their sensory needs. Accommodations like this are too extreme and not realistically expected in a mainstreamed setting.

While I work at a specialized school setting and think it can be a great place for some students with ASD, I believe the authors of this article are far too biased against mainstream settings. From the beginning of the article, it is evident that they do not believe students with ASD can function in a general education classroom. While they have some research to support their claim, I believe that their results, and those of similar studies, could have been caused by a variety of factors. How much training as each teacher had on working with students with ASD? What resources does the school have for students with ASD? Did the student's parents practice adaptive behavior skills at home? Do the students participate in any activities outside of school? Does the student have a supportive group of friends or family? Does the student have a history of behavior problems? Could their be other factors affecting their use of challenging behaviors? Every student with ASD is different, using behavior and language in their own way to serve a particular function. I believe the author's concept that it is merely their school placement, rather than the plethora of other possible factors, that is affecting their social and academic development is far too generalizing for all students with ASD. While I understand that a mainstreamed, general education setting may not be the best choice for every student with ASD, I do not believe it should be ruled out as viable option for all students with ASD. Instead, I believe it should be a decision made on an individual basis, taking into account all the determining factors. 

McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M.S., & Westling, D.L. (2013). Inclusion: Effective Practices for All Students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Reed, P., Osborne, L. A., & Waddington, E. M. (2012). A comparative study of the impact of mainstream and special school placement on the behaviour of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. British Educational Research Journal38(5), 749-763. 


2 comments:

  1. It is so important to be questioning research and the claims that authors make in studies. When an author of a study can critique their own work and talk openly about their own limitations or other possibilities, you know the author is really willing to be open to other lines of thought. What is important to remember is that the concept of "Least Restrictive Environment" should be different for each student. For some students with autism, the least restrictive environment is a general education setting. For the students in the ACE program, that is their least restrictive environment. Thanks for your great critique!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is interesting reading your experiences in the classroom and working with students who have communication disorders. I also admire your patience and understanding of these students. I also find interesting the experiences you have with students.

    ReplyDelete