21:an

För att förända livet måste vi förändra attityder

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KTerS96PUic%3Frel%3D0

https://youtube.com/watch?v=BwlJ6iIQ1Bo%3Frel%3D0

Klicka dig vidare och lyssna på de kompletta intervjuerna med VAR och en i denna trailer.

Jag gillar verkligen texten på den här sången. Det behövs fler uppmuntrade texter som denna. Här har sången fått bilder från senaste matchen som sonen spelade – tillsammans med A-laget. Han var extremt stolt – och det var jag också!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=29MKdFmMKYw%3Frel%3D0

Amerikansk fotboll må vara en sport jag inte riktigt förstår mig på. Men vikten av att idrotta och att få känna sig som en i gänget är en känsla jag känner till!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ium0J7hXQLs%3Frel%3D0

https://youtube.com/watch?v=TvD2sGb_1V0%3Frel%3D0https://youtube.com/watch?v=w2YUW7F03Po%3Frel%3D0

Karin Tesell har gjort två musikvideor. Hon har downs syndrom och använder musiken för att sprida sitt budskap. Så här skriver Närkes Allehanda om Karin och hennes musik:

Karin tycker att det är bra att man uppmärksammar Downs, för det är så mycket man kan göra – trots syndromet. Och alla kan träna, det är därför Karin gjort musikvideon ”Kämpa på” som släpptes på Youtube i dagarna. Videon har hon gjort med hjälp av Helenas särbo Nisse, som driver Playwood produktions i Hallsberg.
– Det var Nisses förslag, säger Karin.
– Det kanske det var men sen sa ju du att det var bra att visa att man kan träna på många sätt, säger Helena och Karin nickar, jo så var det ju.
I musikvideon uppmuntrar Karin till träning och visar de olika sätt hon själv tränar på. Hon går promenader, går på vattengympa och framför allt så kämpar hon på.

Källa: http://na.se/nyheter/orebro/1.2891928-video-karin-vill-inspirera-till-traning

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FeJ8yttldqE%3Frel%3D0https://youtube.com/watch?v=jjXFQb3R3oE%3Frel%3D0

Det här bildspelet gjorde jag för många år sedan inför en lite föreläsning om just matematik och barn med Downs syndrom. Målgruppen var föräldrar till små barn, därför är bildspelet inriktat mot det. Idag hade jag kanske valt att ta med Numicon redan från början – men det var inte på ropet då.

Det är viktigt att veta att ALLA med downs syndrom kan tillgodogöra sig grundläggande matematiska kunskaper. Det gäller bara att hitta rätt sätt för den enskilde individen och INTE ge upp!

Särskola är i sin grund segregerande, på så sätt att den enbart är öppen för elever med en viss typ av problematik (=utvecklingsstörning).
Här kommer en lista av forskning som visar att segregation kan vara missgynsam för eleverna. Jag har INTE faktagranskat.

Studies Shedding Light on the Negative Effects of Educating Children in Self-Contained Classroom

 No educational advantage of a self-contained, segregated classroom, only disadvantages. (Buckley, S.J., Bird, G., Sacks, B. & Archer, T., 2006)
 No academic advantage (Falvey, 2004)
 Inferior quality of IEP goals (Hunt & Farron-Davis, 1992)
 Poorer quality of instruction in academic skills (NCLB, Wheelock, 1992)
 Lack of generalization to regular environments (Stokes & Baer, 1977)
 Disruption of opportunities for sustained interactions and social relationships with typical students (Strully & Strully, 1992)
 Decrease in the confidence that general education teachers have for teaching diverse learners (Giangreco et al., 1993)
 Absence of appropriate role and behavior models (Lovett, 1996)
 Negative impact on classroom climate and student attitudes about differences (Fisher, Sax, & Rodifer, 2000)
 Children with Down Syndrome who are educated in special classrooms are more than 2 years behind on expressive language than children with Down Syndrome who are fully included (Buckley, DownsEd)
 No gains were made in speech and language in the students that were in special classrooms (Buckley, DownsEd)
 No improvements in school achievements (Cuckle, 1998)
 There is no such thing as a self-contained world, educating students in a self-contained room does not allow the students to learn all of the other things they will need to survive in this very large world (Decatur & Bassett, 2007)
 Students who stay their whole career in a self-contained classroom, have a 5 percent shot at a diploma. And that is immoral,” said the DOE’s chief academic officer, Shael Polakow-Suransky. “We cannot allow thousands of kids to be confined to failure.”
 Disruption of sustained opportunities for social relationships (Strully & Strully, 1992)
 Disruption of Maslow’s Theory that “all human beings need to belong before they can achieve” (Kunc, 1992)

Källa: http://www.fullinclusionforcatholicschools.org/harmful-effects-of-segregation/

Att få den bästa tänkbara utbildningen om man har Downs syndrom i Sverige idag är inte möjligt. Visst är Sverige mycket bättre på detta idag än för 40-50 år sedan, men det är inte dags att klappa oss för bröstet och säga hur bra vi är. På många håll i Sverige får barn med Downs syndrom en bra skolgång – men det betyder att de får en bra, social och till viss del utvecklande miljö i skolan, inte att de får den bästa tänkbara akademiska och sociala utbildningen.

Vad behövs?

Inkludering är det första. En övertygande mängd forskning visar att det bara är med hjälp av inkludering vi kan nå målet att ge alla den bästa tänkbara utbildningen. Läs gärna mina tidigare inlägg om inkludering, där du hittar både våra personliga erfarenheter, åsikter och referenser till böcker och forskning. (titta under kategorierna skolan och bokhörnan) Här finns också information.

Även om inkludering är viktigt så räcker det inte. Det krävs också en tro på att dessa barn och ungdomar KAN lära och en uppfinningsrikedom för att hitta rätt vägar för inlärning. Det finns en hel del särskilda metoder som visat sig framgångsrika, särskilt när de KOMBINERAS med inkludering.

Matematik – många elever med Downs syndrom har svårigheter i matematik. Det beror inte på att de inte kan lära utan på att de inte får den undervisning de behöver. Forskning har visat att bl.a. Numicon är gynnsamt. mer information om matematik och Downs syndrom (med forskningsreferenser) hittar du här.

Läsinlärning – Barn och ungdomar med Downs syndrom kan lära sig läsa. Trots det får många inte ens undervisning i läsinlärning! Det är faktiskt så att forskning visar att läsförmåga ofta är en stark sida hos barn med Downs syndrom. Många börjar med ordbilder och lär sig känna igen ord och går sedan vidare till att ljuda ut ord. Många andra börjar med ljuden (i samband med talträning) och går sedan vidare till hela ord. Oavsett vilket behöver barn och ungdomar med Downs syndrom både ock. Jag har tidigare skrivit om vikten av läsinlärning (ämneskategori träning – läsning).

Skriva – på den här punkten vet jag inte så jättemycket. Innan den motoriska förmågan är utvecklad nog för att skriva kan man använda stämplar, klistermärken eller tangentbord. Talsynteser och program som kopplar bild till skrivet ord kan vara gynnsamt. Klart för mig är att det går att göra mycket mer än vad min son fått.

Struktur – skoldagen behöver vara strukturerad och tydlig. Många barn har både hörselnedsättningar och synnedsättningar som måste beaktas. All information måste förmedlas via flera inlärningskanaler. Barnet/ungdomen behöver hjälp att strukturera och kategorisera sin kunskap. Utnyttja den specifika individens styrkor och kompensera för svagare områden. Tänk på att barn/ungdomar med Downs syndrom är individer med alldeles personliga förmågor! Kartlägg noga och fortlöpande och utvärdera och korrigera undervisningen. Acceptera aldrig att hen inte kan lära sig det bara för att detta upplägget misslyckades – och tänk på att utnyttja alla positiva egenskaper i inkluderingen!

Döda dina fördomar! – det största hindret för den bästa tänkbara utbildningen är att det tänkbara blir för lågt ställt. Titta på fantastiska förebilder och försök nå dit. Det finns människor med Downs syndrom som är egenföretagare, skådespelare, operasångare, poeter, författare, politiker och mycket mera. Sikta högt. Personal som inte tror på dem kommer inte heller att pusha dem att nå höga mål.

Förut presenterade jag en amerikansk lista över forskning om inkludering. Nu lägger jag till några jag har i “bakfickan” som alla är nordiska. Det finns mycket mer än detta, men de ger dig en bra start och sen kan du gå via referenslistan till fler.

Berthén, Diana (2007) Förberedelse för särskiljdhet : Särskolans pedagogiska arbete i ett verksamhetsteoretiskt perspektiv, Karlstad Universitet.

Dolva, Anne-Stine (2009) Children with Down syndrome in mainstream schools : Conditions influencing participation, Karolinska Institutet

Nilholm & Göransson (2014) Inkluderande undervisning – vad kan man lära sig av forskningen?, FoU Specialpedagogiska skolmyndigheten

Det finns mycket forskning om inkludering. Just den här listan är sammansatt av den amerikanska organisationen: The National Catholic Board on Full Inclusion. Jag har inte faktagranskat detta!

Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 57, 339-348.

This study spanned 15 years and found that students with disabilities educated in inclusive settings had an employment rate of 73% while those in segregated programs had an employment rate of 53%.

Baker, Wang, & Walberg (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational leadership, 52, 33-35.

This study showed that students with ID educated in regular classes do better academically and socially than comparable students in non-inclusive settings.

Brandt (2011). From Policy to practice in higher education: The experiences of disabled students in Norway. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 58, 107-120.

This study is based on qualitative data from in-depth interviews with disabled students in higher education. The findings indicate that an educational reform in Norwegian higher education seems to have helped to strengthen disabled students’ potential for learning, but there are a number of critical periods during their studies when it is imperative for disabled students to get the adjustment needed.

Buckley, Bird, & Sacks (2006). Evidence that we can change the profile from a study of inclusive education. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 9, 51-53.

This paper discusses the evidence that the specific developmental profile frequently described as being associated with Down syndrome – a profile of communication weaknesses relative to social and daily living skills – can be changed. It is not an inevitable outcome of having Down syndrome. Drawing on data collected to explore the outcomes of fully inclusive education for school-age children with Down syndrome, the authors identify that the profile is seen in teenagers in special education settings but is not evident for teenagers in inclusive education. They argue that this is the result of both the effects of fully inclusive education and teaching approaches which have been adapted to address the cognitive and communication weaknesses of the children from an early age.

Buckley, Bird, Sacks, & Archer (2006). A comparison of mainstream and special education for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 9, 54-76.

This article presents data from a research study designed to compare the achieve­ments of teenagers with Down syndrome educated in mainstream classrooms or in special education classrooms throughout their full-time education. Progress is reported for speech and language, literacy, socialisation, daily living skills and behaviour. For all the teenagers, there is evidence of progress with age on all the measures except for communication. Communication continued to improve through teenage years for the included children but not for those in special education classrooms. There were no significant differences in overall outcomes for daily living skills or socialisation. However, there were large significant gains in expressive language and literacy skills for those educated in mainstream classrooms. Teenagers educated in mainstream classrooms showed fewer behavioural difficulties. Further, comparison with data published by these authors in an earlier study, showed no improvements in school achievements in special edu­cation over a 13 year period in the UK (1986-1999).

Casale-Giannola & Wilson Kamens (2006). Inclusion at a university: Experiences of a young woman with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 44, 344-352.

Inclusive classroom interactions can lead to genuine friendships among students with and without disabilities.

Causton-Theoharis, Ashby, & DeClouette (2009). Relentless optimism: Inclusive postsecondary opportunities for students with significant disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disabilities, 22, 88-105.

Inclusive college classes can lead to greater comfort for nondisabled students who interact with students with intellectual disabilities.

Cole, Waldron, & Majd (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings

Effects of inclusive school settings for students in six Indiana school corporations were investigated. Results reveal that students without disabilities educated in inclusive settings made significantly greater academic progress in mathematics and reading. For students with disabilities, there were no significant differences in reading and math achievement across the comparison groups. However, a review of group means and the percentage of students making comparable or greater than average academic progress when compared to students without disabilities indicates a pattern in favor of inclusive settings. The academic progress of students with specific disability labels, namely, learning disabilities and mild mental handicaps, also supported inclusive education.

Costello, C. (1991). A comparison of student cognitive and social achievement for handicapped and regular education students who are educated in integrated versus a substantially separate classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: UMass.

Study found inclusion enhances non-disabled students’ Learning.

Diamond (2001). Relationships among young children’s ideas, emotional understanding, and social contact with classmates with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 104-113.

Children who had social contact with classmates with disabilities had significantly higher scores on measures of emotion understanding and acceptance of individuals with disabilities than did children who had contact only with typically developing classmates.

Favazza & Odom (1997). Promoting positive attitudes of kindergarten-age children toward people with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 405-418.

This study examined the effects of contact, books, and discussions on the attitudes of kindergarten-age children toward people with disabilities. Children in the high-contact group participated in a program designed to promote acceptance of people with disabilities; the low-contact group had incidental contact with children with disabilities; the no-contact group had neither direct nor indirect contact with children with disabilities. At pretest, all participants had low levels of acceptance of people with disabilities. At posttest, significant gains in levels of acceptance were found only in the high-contact group. The program appears to be an effective strategy for promoting acceptance of people with disabilities.

Favazza, Phillipsen, & Kuman (2000). Measuring and promoting acceptance of young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children.

The results of two studies are presented: (a) an examination of the reliability of the Acceptance Scale for Kindergartners with a sample of non-Caucasian, low socioeconomic status (SES) children, and (b) the efficacy of an intervention designed to promote acceptance of young children with disabilities with this new sample. Results indicate that the Acceptance Scale for Kindergarten–Revised is reliable and that various components of a special friends intervention yield differential results. Specifically, results indicate that children exposed to individual components of the intervention had short-term gains in acceptance of individuals with disabilities, while children exposed to the whole intervention had short-term and long-term gains in acceptance. Exposure to the whole program is more effective than any of the individual components in producing greater changes in levels of acceptance of young children with disabilities.

Ferguson & Ash (1989). Lessons from life: Personal and parental perspectives on school, childhood, and disability. In D. Bilken, A. ford, & D. Ferguson (Eds.), Disability and Society, pp. 108-140. Chicago: National Society for Education.

This study found that the more time students with disabilities spent in regular classes, the more they achieved as adults in employment and continuing education.

Folk, Yamamoto, & Stodden (2012). Implementing inclusion and collaborative teaming in a model program of postsecondary education for young adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 257-269.

The authors provide a descriptive report of an inclusive college program in the state of Hawai‘i and share preliminary feedback from student participants, agency and institutional partners, and project staff. They found that student participants with ID, who were culturally and linguistically diverse, relished the opportunity to participate in PSE and were motivated by the opportunity to learn, meet new people, and contribute to their families. Interagency partners valued the process and benefits of interagency teaming, with most reporting that participating in collaborative teaming resulted in a shift in their views on inclusion of students with ID in PSE.

Gandhi (2007). Context matters: Exploring relations between inclusion and reading achievement of students without disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54, 91-112.

This article examines relations between inclusion-related variables and reading achievement of without disabilities, using a nationally representative dataset of Grade 3 students in the United States (U.S.). Controlling for background variables, inclusion —with few exceptions—appears to make no difference in the reading achievement of nondisabled students.

Griffin, Summer, McMillan, Day, & Hodapp (2012). Attitudes toward including students with intellectual disabilities at college. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 234-239.

The authors surveyed 256 college students about their attitudes toward students with intellectual disabilities and their inclusion in college classes. Overall, the college students reported positive attitudes. They noted that female students and those with higher comfort levels perceived the abilities of people with intellectual disabilities as higher, thought more benefits were associated with their inclusion, and were more willing to interact with them on campus.

Grigal & Hart (2012). The power of expectations. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 221-222.

The existence of a special issue of the Journal of Policy and Practice on Intellectual Disabilities focusing on postsecondary education for individuals with intellectual disabilities demonstrates that there are increasing expectations that people with an intellectual disability can and should be given the choice of going to college. And similar to other groups of young people who have gone to college, their path toward college and the outcomes that they seek and achieve from college will vary considerably. As students with an intellectual disability become yet another subgroup of the diverse learners in the higher education landscape, the journey to and through college becomes all the more complex. In this issue, we sought to capture some of the many facets that impact or are impacted by this emerging college student group.

Hamill (2003). Going to college: the experiences of a young woman with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 41, 340-353.

Inclusive classroom interactions can lead to genuine friendships among students with and without disabilities.

Helmstetter, Peck, Giangreco (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 263-276.

A statewide survey of 166 high school students examined the outcomes of interaction with peers with moderate or severe disabilities. They results indicate that integration may offer opportunities for nondisabled students to develop a sense of personal responsibility and an ethic of caring and commitment to others.

Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, & Palombaro (1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242-253.

This investigation explored the use of teacher and student time in an inclusive elementary school where students with mild to profound disabilities were enrolled in general education classrooms. Students in each group evidenced comparable levels of engaged time, and students with severe disabilities had no effect on losses of instructional time.

Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290-301.

In a study of cooperative learning groups, students without disabilities who facilitated interactions of their peers with severe disabilities did not have their level of achievement affected.

Jones & Zach (2012). Creating effective mentoring partnerships for students with intellectual disabilities on campus. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 270-278.

The study identified several key components for creating and improving effective mentoring partnerships on a university campus. These include (1) providing mentoring orientations and faculty training; (2) developing effective systems for communicating and collaborating across stakeholders; (3) promoting the establishment of co-equal relationships among mentoring partners; (4) maintaining high expectations for students with ID; (5) using mentors as resources to professors and establishing natural supports in the college classroom; (6) encouraging independence; (7) prioritizing fun and socializing; and (8) staying focused on the big picture of inclusion.

Kaskinen-Chapman (1992). Saline area schools and inclusive community concepts. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (eds.), Restructuring for caring and effect education (pp 169-185). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Study found inclusion enhances non-disabled students’ Learning.

Keefe & VanEtten (1994).

Academic and social outcomes for students with moderate to profound disabilities in integrated settings. Paper presented at the conference of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Atlanta. For students with severe disabilities, this study found higher levels of “active academic responding” and lower levels of competing behavior in general education settings as compared to segregated settings.

Kelly (1992).

Study found that inclusion yields social and emotional benefits for all students, with self-esteem and attendance improves for some students considered “at risk.”

Lipsky & Gartner (1995). The evaluation of inclusive education programs. NCERI Bulleting, 2(2).

This study reported academic, behavioral and social benefits for students with and without disabilities. It also concluded that students within each of IDEA’s 13 categories of disability, at all levels of severity, have been effectively integrated into general education classrooms. Like the Educational Challenges Inclusion Study by NDSS, this one also reported positive outcomes and high levels of professional fulfillment for teachers.

Martinez, Conroy, & Cerreto (2012). Parent involvement in the transition process of children with intellectual disabilities: The influence of inclusion on parent desires and expectations for postsecondary education. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 279-288.

We studied parents’ means of accessing information and the impact of K-12 inclusive general education experiences on parents’ desires and expectations for PSE. Key findings indicated that parents did not fully understand the transition process and had a low degree of knowledge and access to information about PSE. The data showed that levels of student inclusion related to parental desire and expectation for PSE and to parental involvement in transition planning activities.

May, C. P. (2012). Inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities enhances openness to diversity on a college campus. Journal of Policy and Practice for Intellectual Disability, 9(4), 240-246.

Thus study showed that when students with ID are included in college classes, the attitudes of the students without ID toward diversity and disability became more positive.

May, C. P., & Pittard, L. (2012). Reflections from the peer mentor experience: Evidence for social and moral growth. Monograph of State of the Science in Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

This study showed that mentors who work with college-aged students with disabilities show enhanced social and moral development.

May (2013). An investigation of attitude change in inclusive college classes including young adults with an intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 240-246.

Nondisabled students enrolled in inclusive college classes showed significantly greater openness to diversity at the end of the semester than nondisabled students enrolled in non-inclusive classes.

Okagaki, Diamond, & Kontos (1998). Correlates of young children’s interactions with classmates with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 67-86.

This study was conducted at an inclusive university-based preschool. Parents’ beliefs and children’s attitudes toward children with disabilities were positively related to the frequency of children’s actual contacts with classmates with disabilities during free play time

Pierce (2013). A healthy, thoughtful, insightful discussion about social inclusion in a postsecondary institution. Dissertation Abstracts.

Five key themes emerged as primary observations of social inclusion at a postsecondary education institution: conflict between the college philosophy of social inclusion and the reality of what is happening in individual classes, conflict between encouraging social inclusion and the reality of departmental requirements for courses and graduation, slow pace at which society accepts individuals with developmental disabilities, varied expectations of the outcome of social inclusion, and comfort level with individuals with developmental disabilities.

Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas (2002). Outcomes
for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs.

Students served in inclusive classrooms earned higher grades, achieved higher or comparable scores on standardized tests, committed no more behavioral infractions, and attended more days of school than did students taught in pull-out special education classrooms.

Salend & Duhaney (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial & Special Education, 20, 114-126.

This article reviews the literature with respect to inclusion programs and students with and without disabilities and their teachers. The findings of the studies reviewed cited indicate that: (a) the impact of inclusion programs on the academic performance and social development of students with disabilities has been mixed; (b) the placement of students without disabilities in inclusion programs does not appear to interfere with their academic performance and has several social benefits for these students; and (c) teachers’ responses to inclusion programs are complex, are shaped by multiple variables, and change over time.

Sharpe, York-Barr, & Knight (1994). Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of classmates without disabilities: A preliminary study. Remedial & Special Education, 15, 281-287.

An inclusive environment was defined as a general education elementary classroom with members including some who had significant disabilities and who were previously taught in self-contained special education classrooms. This study examined the academic performance differences between 35 general education students educated in an inclusive environment (the inclusion group) and 108 general education students who were not in inclusive environments (the comparison group). Group achievement test scores and report card ratings were used as performance indicators in the academic areas of reading, language arts, mathematics, and the behavioral areas of conduct and effort. The results of the study revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups for every academic and behavioral measure.

Staub & Peck (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52, 36-40.

The effects of inclusion on nondisabled students are discussed. Research has found no deceleration of academic progress for nondisabled students enrolled in inclusive classrooms. One study indicated that the presence of students with severe disabilities had no effect on levels of teacher time allocated to, or engaged with, nondisabled students, and the amount of time lost to interruptions of instruction was not significantly different in inclusive and noninclusive classrooms. Observations of young children in inclusive classrooms suggest that nondisabled students seldom learn undesirable behavior from students with disabilities.

Tapasak and Walther-Thomas (1999). Evaluation of a first-year inclusion program.

Students with and without ID showed increased cognitive competence and social skills in inclusive settings.

Uditsky & Hughson (2012). Inclusive postsecondary education – An evidence-based moral imperative. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 298-302.

In this article, the authors take the position that the desire for inclusive education and the beliefs and principles of inclusive practices must be the foundation for inclusive postsecondary education (IPSE). The authors hold to the principles of inclusion as the foundation for postsecondary education given the known failure of segregated education to result in positive social and economic outcomes. The authors explore the means of achieving better futures for students with ID through IPSE. This article highlights the findings of 25 years experience across the province of Alberta in implementing 18 IPSE initiatives for young adults with the full range of ID, including those with severe and multiple disabilities, and outlines the challenging behaviors thus strengthening evidence for adopting inclusive practices.

U.S. Department of Education (1997). Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of IDEA, Washington, DC.

In its report, the DOE noted, “across a number of analyses of post-school results, the message was the same: those who spent more time in regular education experienced better results after high school.

Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm (1996). The effects of inclusion on the social functioning of students with learning disabilities.

Students with LD in inclusive settings fare at least as well socially as students in resource room settings.

Vrdoljak, T. (2009). An inclusion model for a Catholic school. Momentum: The Official Journal of the National Catholic Educational Association, 40(4), 48-50.

A summary of the key findings and disseminate the information included in the author’s dissertation to a wider audience consisting of administrators, educators, and staff employed in Catholic schools in the United States.

Vrdoljak, T. (2012). Revisiting an inclusion model for a Catholic school. Momentum: The Official Journal of the National Catholic Educational Association, 43(3), 40-43.

A discussion of the progress made in the inclusion program at the author’s school and changes in faculty concerns as compared with the data collected for the author’s dissertation.

Waldron & McLeskey (1998). The impact of a full-time Inclusive School Program (ISP) on the academic achievement of students with mild and severe learning disabilities.

Students with ID made significantly more progress in reading and comparable progress in math when compared to students with ID educated in resources settings.

Källa: http://www.fullinclusionforcatholicschools.org/research-that-supports-inclusion/

Idag är det WDSD (World Down Syndrome Day), vilket måste betyda att det igår var WDSD-afton. Som vanligt kan vi svenskar inte hålla oss utan firade aftonen rejält. Det glada budskapet var att alla är olika och det är bra. Bra budskap för firande – bra anledning till att fira.

Men idag är det dags för allvar. Igår talade jag med en 7 åring. Jag berättade att det tyvärr händer att människor med Downs syndrom inte får vara med bara för att de har Downs syndrom. 7 åring tittade först bekymrat och sken sen upp; men IDAG får de vara med!

Och där har vi lite problemet – det duger inte att man får vara med en dag om året – man måste få vara med hela tiden.

Olika är bra och alla olika får alltid vara med!

Det borde vara budskapet – det kanske är det vi ska sprida till nästa år?

Det här är det första i en rad inlägg om vad vi kan och måste göra för att få ett samhälle där människor med Downs syndrom får lika möjligheter och värderas lika högt som andra. Vad tycker du behöver ändras?