Excerpted by permission from Chapter 11, by Craig H. Kennedy & Lisa Sharon Cushing, of Promoting Social Communication: Children with Developmental Disabilities from Birth to Adolescence, edited by Howard Goldstein, Ph.D., Louise A. Kaczmarek, Ph.D., & Kristina M. English, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2001 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

Missy was an eighth-grade student with severe disabilities attending a middle school in an economically, culturally, and ethnically diverse suburb of a metropolitan city. Her earlier educational experience was in a self-contained classroom in an elementary school. Missy had Rett syndrome and was a quiet student who would shake or cry when upset. If she was interested in an object or person, she would look at the individual or object and smile. Her time at the middle school was focused on basic skills and communication within general education environments.

Prior to the school year, the special education teacher met with Missy’s family and discussed general education class options. The biggest issue for her family was the absence of same-age friends in her life as well as experiences typical of a 13-year-old girl. Input during this family-centered meeting helped the special education teacher identify general education courses that would provide both academic and social inclusion opportunities.

Inclusion was a new concept for all the teachers at the middle school, and the special education teacher and administrators felt it was important to collaborate with general education teachers who expressed a willingness to include students with severe disabilities. The special education teacher met with the general education teachers who volunteered. She described Missy’s abilities and why it was important that she be included in general education classes. The teachers discussed their teaching approaches and what they expected to gain from Missy’s participation in their classes. The special education teacher then shared examples of goals and objectives that Missy could work on while in the general education class. Following this meeting, the special educator conducted ecological assessments of the general education classrooms to identify specific instructional objectives for Missy (see Rainforth & York-Barr, 1997). This process entailed identifying key routines that peers engaged in and opportunities for embedding IEP goals into those routines. In addition, it was decided that the special educator would meet weekly with the general education teacher to brainstorm about curricular adaptations and to keep abreast of the classroom social dynamics.

Missy was initially included in six classes: English, computers, home economics, physical education, social studies, and art. She attended classes with her peers beginning the first day of school. In each classroom, the general education teacher made a brief announcement asking if any peers without disabilities would like to help Missy in the class. Several peers showed an interest in working with Missy. In computer class, for example, a peer named Annie approached the teacher on the first day and asked if she could help Missy. A few days later, Tawny, another peer, approached a special education assistant and asked about ways that she could help Missy feel more comfortable in class. Similar events occurred in other classes, sometimes initiated by peers, sometimes by adults.

Concurrent with the classroom announcements, a peer support program was created. A notice was posted in the school bulletin during the first few weeks of school asking for peers without disabilities to help students with disabilities. The peer support announcement was extremely successful in recruiting peers. Those peers who were in classes with students with disabilities were asked to assist the students in class. Peers who shared no classes with a student with disabilities were asked to assist a student in another school context (e.g., transitions between the bus to class, during lunch).

Through discussions with teachers and through personal experience, peer supports learned how Missy communicated, interacted, and learned. Adult support was systematically faded. Eventually, adults took a consultative role for Missy and her peer supports. Such an arrangement allowed adults to engage in various other activities while monitoring Missy and her peer supports. A checklist was created consisting of goals and objectives from Missy’s IEP. This checklist was easy to follow and allowed the peers to check off the objectives they worked on in class. During most classes, a special educator was available to assist the peers and to address their concerns. The peer support programs increased social interactions among Missy and her peers and helped to alleviate the fears of some general education teachers who then began to consider Missy just another student in the school.

Summary

Missy’s example highlights a number of themes outlined in Chapter 10. Two basic strategies are especially important for establishing initial interactions between students with severe disabilities and their peers in general education environments. First, active communication and collaboration among special and general educators is essential. Special educators need to be liaisons and facilitators of general education participation for students with disabilities. Without active recruitment of general education teachers and classrooms, social participation for students with severe disabilities is unlikely.

Second, special educators must establish peer support networks. This responsibility entails recruiting peers without disabilities, encouraging initial encounters between students and peers, and routinely monitoring those interactions. Unless special educators take an active role in developing peer support programs, these interactions rarely materialize by themselves. These two messages suggest a significant departure from the traditional roles of special educators; however, as the environments in which educational goals are targeted for instruction evolve, special educators’ roles change accordingly.