Segregated Programs Versus Integrated Comprehensive Service Delivery for All Learners

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to address the principles of a comprehensive whole-school restructuring to serve not only students with disabilities educated in inclusive environments but also all learners who have been labeled to receive services from federally mandated programs, such as special education, limited English, at risk, or Title I. The number of students who qualify for such services is growing. Unfortunately, these students often spend the largest part of their day leaving their classroom to receive special instruction, resulting in a disconnected and fragmented day. We address the outcomes of traditional programs and the underlying principles necessary to support inclusive services versus creating segregated programs. The principles are classified into four cornerstones: core principles, location of services, curriculum and instruction, and funding and policy.

From Classmates to Inmates: An Integrated Approach to Break the School-to-Prison Pipeline

“…The proposed Integrated Learning Model seeks to bridge the work of sociocultural theorists, such as Yosso, and educational researchers, such as Gay (2002Gay ( , 2010 and Frattura and Capper (2006), in order to form a clear framework that can serve to guide classroom climate and structure, while still leaving room for flexibility of implementation. This model recognizes that each class has its own unique set of strengths that should be embraced.…”

“…More specifically, culturally responsive teaching applies cultural knowledge based on the student's experiences, and in an environment that is compatible with the student's cultural norms (Siwatu, 2007). Inclusive service delivery models, such as the Integrated Comprehensive Services Model (Frattura & Capper, 2006), ensure equity of opportunity and access to appropriate educational settings. Merging inclusive models with culturally responsive pedagogy can be one solution to breaking the school-to-prison pipeline for youth who are vulnerable to disproportionate school failure or dropout due to sociodemographics or disability status, by facilitating equal access to quality instruction.…”

“…This encompasses not only the curriculum taught, but also the opportunities for, and types of interactions among, students, including those from typically vulnerable demographics. In order to design a comprehensive school reform approach that facilitates optimum learning for all students, regardless of any risk factor, Frattura and Capper (2006) developed an integrated comprehensive services model that includes four components: (a) focusing on equity, (b) establishing equitable structures, (c) implementing change, and (d) providing access to high-quality teaching and learning. The goal of this model is to prevent student failure, and this is accomplished by building teacher capacity to reach the diversity of students.…”

“…Figure 1 provides a model that incorporates and expands the work of Gay (2002Gay ( , 2010 and Frattura and Capper (2006) by infusing culturally responsive teaching with the Integrated Comprehensive Services Model. Yosso's work informs the proposed Integrated Learning Model in that it expands the theoretical tenets (i.e., aspirational capital, linguistic capital, familial capital, social capital, and navigational capital) into school-and classroom-based culturally responsive practices.…”

“…Arguably, the model also offers an alternative to the standard white, middle class stronghold Gay's (2002Gay's ( , 2010 components of culturally responsive teaching and Frattura's and Capper's (2006) integrated comprehensive services model are merged into a new Integrated Learning Model on dictating whose culture has capital. By providing a framework for how culturally responsive teaching can be integrated with equity and access as a means of early intervention to prevent dropout, schools may begin to break the classmate-to-inmate pipeline for students of color and students with disabilities.…”