DOE Home

Office of Academic Achievement through Language Acquisition

Technical Assistance Note No. 019-ESOL-95

Inclusion as an Instructional Model for LEP Students

Inclusion, as a concept, has been primarily associated with the education of exceptional students. In the context of exceptional education, inclusion is both a process and a goal. Inclusion appears at the end of a continuum that ranges from the most restrictive instructional environment to the least restrictive one. An exceptional education student would be placed in that continuum based on the congruence of that student's individual needs, the instructional strategies and setting necessitated by such needs, and appropriate available resources. For some such students, inclusion would be the sole instructional design from the beginning of exceptional education intervention; for others, varying degrees of inclusion would be progressively achieved, again, as dictated by the congruence of each student's evolving needs with appropriate mainstream instructional opportunities.

This technical assistance paper, in response to several inquiries from school districts, aims to clarify how inclusion would apply to the education of language enriched pupils (LEP).

NOTE* Nothing in this technical assistance paper, though, is to be interpreted as encouraging an indiscriminate rush to inclusion to substitute for existing successful educational practices. Inclusion, if it is to be implemented at all, needs to occur one student at a time.

Inclusion is a term that is often used to describe the provision of instruction within the conventional/mainstream classroom to students with special needs and/or talents. In an inclusion model, for instance, elementary LEP students are instructed in a conventional elementary classroom rather than in a self-contained classroom for ESOL and bilingual basic subject instruction. Middle and high school students are placed in a mainstream American History class rather than in a self-contained American History class designed exclusively for LEP students where they are taught either in the heritage language or using ESOL modification strategies by a subject area certificated teacher who has completed the prescribed ESOL inservice. Middle and high school students are instructed in the mainstream English class rather than in a self-contained ESOL class.

As the above examples imply, there are two primary components of programs for LEP students. Each student must be provided language arts instruction using basic ESOL. Each student also must be provided comprehensible instruction in the basic subjects which may be done using either the student's heritage language or ESOL subject matter strategies. An inclusion model needs to address both of these components.

Inclusion would be the preferred alternative whenever a school has a number of LEP students which is insufficient to support other instructional approaches. Inclusion in basic subject area classes and other classes such as art, physical education and vocational offerings often would be combined with a self-contained ESOL environment for language arts instruction.

Inclusion would not be the preferred alternative in a school where a sufficient number of LEP students allows for other instructional approaches such as self-contained ESOL for language arts instruction, with students grouped by level of English proficiency, and either heritage language instruction in basic subject areas or instruction in basic subject areas conducted in classes exclusively designed for LEP students using ESOL strategies with built-in heritage language instructional support.

Inclusion, superficially, appears to address the requirement for equal access that is at the core of programs for LEP students. Equal access, though, demands an equal opportunity to learn which is grounded on instruction that is comprehensible. Inclusion does not appear, at first glance, to have as strong a claim to comprehensibility as does instruction in the heritage language and, to a lesser degree, self-contained instruction using ESOL techniques. Inclusion, in other words, has to explicitly earn its claim to comprehensibility by sound design and effective practices as validated by a feedback process that demonstrates continuous successful learning.

Inclusion is not a one time exercise. Inclusion demands an on-going effort to make the "included" student as dynamically a part of the class as any student that is perceived as routinely belonging to that class. Inclusion may not lead to oblivion: a student may not be included and then neglected, but included, integrated, and supported. A teacher in whose class a LEP student is "included" may not, likewise, be left isolated and unsupported. Inclusion is not synonymous with "immersion," an anachronistic instructional practice that, with its unfortunate "sink or swim" connotation, would leave the student unaided as he/she struggles in an inhospitable educational sea.

The impetus for the adoption of an inclusion model may not reasonably be an attempt to reduce instructional resources. (The categorical funding -weighted FTE- that is generated by a LEP student in a self-contained class is also available to that student in an inclusion model so that his/her needs may continue to be addressed in an individualized manner.) In an inclusion model, instruction takes place not in a somewhat homogeneous classroom configuration but in one that is more diverse. The task for the teacher becomes more complex as the increasingly varied needs of the students are addressed. Such complexity would argue for inclusion classes to have a lower student-teacher ratio than other more homogeneous classes. Inclusion, therefore, requires, at the very least, the same resources as other instructional models, while, in specific instances, requiring additional such resources.

An example:

The inclusion of each student would take place only after carefully ascertaining that such an inclusion would provide the best educational placement for such a student. In determining the appropriateness of inclusion of any individual student as well as the degree of instructional support necessitated to make such inclusion successful, the level of English and academic proficiency of the student as compared to the level of English and academic proficiency required by the class would be a paramount consideration.

A mechanism for parental involvement and feedback is developed. There would be formative and summative program assessments that would include not only academic progress of the students but also additional input from students as well as input from teachers, parents and administrators.

1. Careful planning involving administrative, instructional and non- instructional personnel.
2. Parental participation in planning, implementation, and assessment. Training opportunities for parents would be provided to facilitate such participation.
3. Consensus about the model's appropriateness to deliver comprehensible instruction.
4. Assurance of appropriate instructional resources, including human resources.
5. Clearly established guidelines for the inclusion of individual students.
6. Organizational safeguards to ensure that the range of instructional needs of included students does not overwhelm the classroom setting.
7. Formative and summative evaluation schemes allowing for feedback from all stakeholders.
8. Professional development opportunities for administration, faculty and staff.

Inclusion should be attempted with the goal of making instruction more effective. In an inclusion class, the teacher implements a plan to use ESOL strategies for all the students or finds a way to individualize programs so as to ensure that such strategies be used for LEP students. Comprehensible instruction may not be sacrificed for inclusion's sake. (A reminder: When there are in a school more than fifteen current LEP students who speak the same heritage language, there must be a teacher or teacher aide who is proficient in such a language and whose function is to assist teachers and students in the attainment of comprehensible instruction, as per LULAC et al. vs. SBE Consent Decree, II E 3.)

Inclusion necessitates a more efficient use of existing resources or the identification and procurement of additional needed resources. Inclusion, for instance, does not diminish the requirement for inservice training, but may extend that requirement to additional teachers. For example, when a LEP student receives language arts instruction through inclusion in an English class, the ESOL Endorsement is required for the teacher of such a class even though most of the students in that class may not be LEP; when a LEP student receives instruction in a basic subject - computer literacy, mathematics, science, social studies - through inclusion in a basic subject class, the teacher of such a class is required to meet the ESOL 60 hour inservice requirement, again, even though most of the students in that class may not be LEP. (Please refer to the attached Timelines for Completion of the ESOL Training Requirements.)

Using the term "inclusion," other than to describe good and sound instructional practices, deprives inclusion of its legitimacy. Inclusion, on the contrary, is an innovative approach prompted by the goal of full and more meaningful participation of all students in all instructional programs. Inclusion must be a thoughtful, resourceful commitment of the entire school community to address the individual needs of each student using a comprehensive, communitarian approach.

Summary

For questions & comments regarding education issues: | For questions & comments regarding this Web site: E-mail Webmaster
Accessibility | Copyright Florida Department of Education ©2005 | Privacy Statement | Public Records
Free Downloads: Acrobat Reader | Excel Viewer 2003 | Word Viewer 97/2000 | PowerPoint Viewer 2003
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.