Jerry Qiao

8/10/14
ED 142 Final Paper
Student Profile
Eliza is a nine-year-old girl with autism. She lives in Natick, MA with her parents and
two older siblings. Elizas developmental track was mostly normal in her early childhood. Her
first words (doggy and duck) came around 12 months. She would move onto mama and
dada, but as her mother, Aimee Mury, described, it was never intentional. In the next few
months, however, her language didnt develop; in fact, she had stopped saying doggy and
duck altogether. After speaking with and receiving an evaluation from Early Intervention at
around 16 months, Eliza was given a speech therapist for one hour a week. Despite the speech
delays, Elizas parents werent overly concerned at the time, as Eliza had over half a dozen ear
infections as a baby.
At around 20 months, Elizas mother became aware of Elizas laid back nature. Eliza
never tried to show toys or new objects to her parents, nor was she able to pick up visual cues,
such as pointing. When Eliza went in for her two-year checkup, her doctor became concerned
with Elizas lagging development and recommended that a pediatric developmental specialist see
Eliza. However, after the hour-long consultation, the specialist did not believe Eliza had autism,
but rather a hearing problem. According to Aimee Mury, speaking in the documentary Eliza My
Songbird, the specialist said, autistic kids never look at you, but she does; on her terms, yes, but
she does look at you. However, further opinions from occupational therapists (OTs) and other
specialists disagreed with the initial non-diagnosis of autism.
One sign of autism is the lack of shared attention. Most children, at around two years old,
are able to pick up those cues. But according to Mellissa Fitzpatrick, an OT, she didnt see Eliza

doing that at all, nor was she pointing to keep her needs and wants met. Furthermore, Elizas lack
of imitation was another warning sign. A few months before Eliza turned three years old, she
saw a few more specialists, including neuropsychologists, who officially diagnosed her as having
an autism spectrum disorder.
Soon after the diagnosis, Eliza began applied behavior analysis therapy for 11 hours a
week. Once Eliza turned three years old, she received therapy for about 25 hours a week in her
local school district. Most of her learning in the early stages was regarding basic functions, such
as washing her hands, brushing her teeth, and holding a pencil. She was also taught
communication strategies using visual aids.
Currently, Eliza is attending the New England Center for Children (NECC), a private
school for children with autism. Under the Free Appropriate Public Education & Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, she is able to attend the school for free, as it is funded by her local
school district. She is in a classroom of eight students, each of whom has a specialist working
with them throughout the day. Her schooling consists of focusing on certain core skills, such as
writing her name or brushing her teeth. She is on an Independent Education Plan (IEP) that is
targeted in these areas, along with a focus on peer interactions. Her current curriculum at NECC
is focused on using photos to identify objects and learning sight words. According to her
therapist, Eliza is in a skill-focused education, such as learning how to use money, how to sort,
and how to use tools, in hopes that at around age 16, she could be working as a shelf stocker or a
house cleaner.
Despite some of her limitations, Eliza is particularly adept at visual learning. She is great
at matching and doing puzzles, both of which are activities that she can sit for up to an hour
doing quietly and independently. She is also quiet proficient at using her iPad as means of

communication and understanding her routine. In addition, her father, John Mury, declares that
Eliza is a pro at Subway Surfer and Temple Run 2, both of which are video games designed for
touch-screen cell phones and tablets. Eliza also is able to use an application that allows her to
track her activities and lets her indicate which ones shes done. For example, she knows that after
coloring for an hour, she is to go to her iPad and clock out and then clock in for her next
activity in her daily routine.
Eliza does have some areas where she is not showing much improvement, particularly
with social interactions. She is still highly unresponsive to both peers and adults. Oftentimes it
takes three or four iterations of the same command for Eliza to respond. When I first walked into
Elizas room and met her, she didnt look up or acknowledge my presence until she was
prompted to say hi to me. Even with the prompt, it took many tries from her therapist for Eliza
to say hi. Despite saying the word, she did not look up at my general direction.
As aforementioned, Eliza has officially been diagnosed with autism. Shes been receiving
specialized services since the diagnosis. From my observation, she has shown the standard signs
of autism as defined by the US Department of Education (and likewise, the Massachusetts
Department of Education), which defines autism as:
a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal
communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that
adversely affects a child's educational performance. Other characteristics often
associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped
movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and
unusual responses to sensory experiences.

Eliza has significant verbal communication difficulties and lacks shared attention. Her
verbal vocabulary is very limited and only speaks when prompted multiple times. Eliza exhibits
disabilities in the listed areas of verbal and nonverbal communication, as well as social
interaction.

Research Topic

Introduction
One major result of the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA) is the push for students
with all appropriate disabilities to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment. The goal
was for disabled students to be educated with their non-disabled peers in general education
classrooms. The law stipulated that special classrooms and separated schools should still exist for
the purpose of educating students with severe disabilities only if it were not possible to educate
them in general education classrooms. Because of this, along with studies showing that autism is
affecting 1 in 80 students, an influx of students with disabilities began integrating into regular
classrooms. With these new laws, it becomes important to address whether or not inclusion,
particularly for learning impaired students on the autism spectrum, is the best placement for
these students. Is the full inclusion classroom the best situation for students on the autism
spectrum?

Research
One of the primary arguments against inclusion of students on the autism spectrum is the
time and resources needed on specialized instruction. Daniel and King found in their statistical

research of inclusion classrooms that behavior issues were reported more in inclusion classrooms
as compared to non-inclusion classrooms (1997, pg. 77). Furthermore, they found that the
inclusion teacher was devoting more time to behavior management, as autistic children were
more prone to self-injurious behavior and uncontrollable movements and actions. In their
summary, Daniel and King also found that student self-esteem was lower in labeled inclusion
classrooms. Due to the prevalence of behavior problems, as compared to non-inclusion
classrooms, students in general felt worse about themselves. Even though non-inclusion
classrooms still had special needs students (although they received pull-out interventions), they
didnt observe this same phenomenon in those classrooms. This research is contrary to the belief
that surrounding special needs students with normal students is beneficial for their school
experience.
Another related pressing issue regarding inclusion is the attitude of general education
teachers after IDEA. As cited from Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) from the Johnson (2005)
paper, studies showed that while two thirds of general education teachers supported inclusion,
less than one third indicated that they had adequate time, training, or resources necessary to
implement it (pg. 9). Despite the changes in the recent decade regarding special education, it is
still not a requirement for teachers to have a special education license in all states. Hayes (2014)
argues that even with all these strategies that have been developed in theory for teaching ASD
students, teachers are having a hard time implementing it within their classrooms.
Aside from the academic aspect of inclusion classrooms, research has shown that
children with ASD are also more prone to bullying when compared to their normal functioning
peers. Since ASD students have a hard time forming and maintaining friendships with peers, they
are often victimized; key concepts, such as sharing or empathy, are particularly pervasive for

autistic children. Schroeder, Cappadocia, et al. (2014) argue that having friends and/or
supportive peers has been identified as a protective factor for bullying, but oftentimes, ASD
students lack that support system. Examining the bullying issue further, studies show that 40% of
students with some form of autism reported daily victimization, as compared to the 15% from a
control group. In another study of 411 mothers, there was a 94% prevalence rate for
victimization of their autistic children (Schroeder, Cappacodia, et al., pg. 1524). Even though
Hayes (2014), citing Wehman, Smith, and Schall (2009), finds that inclusion classrooms gives
autistic students the opportunity to observe, learn, and practice social skills with peers who do
not have disabilities, it is hard to ignore the realities that autistic children have to deal with in a
school setting. While there may be benefits, some potential challenges prevent most ASD
students from reaping the full benefits that inclusion might provide.
While a breadth of research and literature have reservations regarding autistic children in
full inclusion classrooms, its nonetheless important to highlight why there is such a push for full
inclusion despite the criticism. When considering students on the autism spectrum, researchers
have found that the best practices involve teaching using different styles. For students like Eliza,
clear instruction and visual cards are both teaching and communication styles that she responds
very positively to. However, these two strategies arent just limited to students with autism; they
work with all students. Similarly, one of Elizas main focuses within her IEP is improvement on
social interactions. In order to improve that skill, it is important to put her in situations where
shes able to interact with peers. Simply having her in a resource room or a separate school with
only autistic students will not provide her with the peer interaction that could be crucial to her
development. Many schools, it seems, are functioning under the impression that socio-emotional
learning needs only to be addressed outside of the school context. By having students with ASD

in the classroom, schools and educators will see the benefits that socio-emotional learning has on
both special needs students as well as normal functioning ones. Even in the context of academia,
in Crosland and Dunlaps (2012) research into effective strategies for teaching students with
autism, they note from a variety of literature that peer-meditated interventions involving the
pairing of all children in the class has resulted in gains in reading fluency, reading
comprehension, and social interactions between students with autism and their peers (pg. 256).
These strategies have been proven useful for autistic children, but normal functioning students
feel their effects as well.
Conclusion
By engaging with various literature regarding the inclusion of autistic children within
schools, one common theme that appeared throughout was the lack of focus on the child itself;
much of the critique or examination of the issue of inclusion was external to the student.
Similarly, many of the problems that researchers found regarding inclusion had nothing to do
with the child itself: teachers having a negative attitude regarding having autistic children in their
classrooms, or school systems not having yet made the changes necessary to improve the quality
of education for ASD students (such as requiring special education license or providing enough
PD for teachers regarding the issue). Most research acknowledges that there are great theories for
full inclusion, but schools are ill equipped and ill trained for full implementation. This is an issue
that lies not on the exceptional child, but rather on the structure and system in place. In order for
full inclusion to be possible, the necessary structures needs to be in place. The welfare of the
child is most important.
While there are definitely benefits to full inclusion, there also seems to be a blind push
that forgoes the needs of the student. An autistic child that is placed in a general education room

with no trained specialist present to assist in his or her education is not a desirable scenario, but it
is still too commonly found. Full inclusion is an ideal goal, but it is almost a misnomer.
Including students in classrooms is as simple as placing them, without any support, inside the
classroom. However, the purpose behind inclusion needs to be full integration. The student
should be a member of the class, not just a participant.
The original question Is full inclusion the best situation for students on the autism
spectrum? could more aptly be phrased what is best for ASD students? The answer to that
question may be a full inclusion classroom, but it may also be in a separated school. There is no
blanket answer that fits all students. Each individual has their own unique situations and their
own skillsets. Finding out what works best for each child is ultimately the key.

Bibliography/Works Cited
Crosland, K., & Dunlap, G. (2012). Effective Strategies for the Inclusion of Children with
Autism in General Education Classrooms. Behavior Modification, Vol. 36 (3), 251-269.
Daniel, L.G., & King, D.A. (2001). Impact of inclusion education on academic achievement,
student behavior, and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 91(2), 67-80
Eliza My Songbird. Dir. Zadi Zokou. Perf. Aimee Mury, Mellissa Fitzpatrick, John Mury. 2007.
DVD.
Hayes, D. (2014). Inclusion and Autism: General Education Teachers Perceptions. Dissertation,
East Tennessee State University, ProQuest/UMI (Publication No. 3584945).
Johnson, T. (2005). Inclusion of Students with Autism in Elementary and Middle Schools.
Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, ProQuest/UMI (Publication No. 3197056).
Schroeder, J., Cappadocia, M. C., et. al., (2014). Shedding Light on a Pervasive Problem: A
review of Research on Bullying Experiences Among Children With Autism Spectrum
Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 44 (7), 1520-1534.