Top Lang Disorders

Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 116–133

© 2003, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Inclusion of Learners with

Autism Spectrum Disorders in
General Education Settings
Richard L. Simpson, EdD; Sonja R. de Boer-Ott, MA, BCBA;
Brenda Smith-Myles, PhD
A pivotal element of the Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 1997 is the inclu-
sion of children and youth with disabilities, including those with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), in
general education classrooms. The challenges of including students with ASD are many because of the
nature and severity of their disability. In this regard, the Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Collabo-
ration Model offers guidelines and supports that can facilitate the successful inclusion of children and
youth with autism and related disabilities. Key words: autism, autism spectrum disorders, collaboration,
inclusion

T HE WORK of pioneers such as Kanner

(1943) and Asperger (1944) graphically por-
trayed persons with an autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) as perplexing and mystifying individuals.
Over the decades this enigmatic legacy has con-
tinued. Indeed, in spite of a phenomenal increase
in the study and scrutiny of persons with ASD,
autism-related disabilities remain an intriguing
mystery, including to many professionals (Klin,
Volkmar, & Sparrow, 2000). Accordingly, it is
not surprising that otherwise skilled and com-
petent educators and school-based professionals
frequently report that they consider themselves
to be less than fully capable of serving the needs
of students identified as having ASD (Spears,
Tollefson, & Simpson, 2001).
Children and youth with ASD characteristi-
cally demonstrate significant deficits in basic
areas of functioning, including social interac-
tion, communication, learning, and behavior,
thus contributing to the challenge of educators
and related services professionals effectively
From the Department of Special Education, University of
Kansas, Kansas
Corresponding author: Richard L. Simpson, PhD,
Professor and Chair, Department of Special Education, The
University of Kansas, 521 Joseph R. Pearson Hall, 1122
West Campus Road, Lawrence, KS 66045-3101.
116
serving them (Happe, 1998; Quill, 1995; Zager,
1999). Beginning at an early age and typically
continuing throughout their lives, individuals
with ASD (1) have difficulty relating appropri-
ately to others, (2) present with a wide range
of language and communication disorders and
peculiarities, (3) frequently encounter difficulty
in successfully following and mastering an un-
modified school curriculum, (4) have an obses-
sive insistence on environmental sameness,
and (5) are well-known for their atypical and
often difficult-to-understand behavior, includ-
ing stereotypic, repetitive, and self-stimulatory
responses (American Psychiatric Association,
2000; Scheuermann & Webber, 2002; Simpson
& Myles, 1998). Moreover, children and youth
with ASD often have irregular patterns of cog-
nitive and educational strengths and deficits,
including splinter skills and isolated discon-
tinuous abilities (Jordan, 1999; Simpson, 2001).
Connected to these multiple and consequential
factors, there is little argument that students
with ASD present as significant educational
challenges.
Independent of the exact nature and severity
of their disability, all children and youth with
ASD require careful individualized planning to
experience educational success. Learners with
ASD will significantly test even the best school
programs. Further, these challenges will likely
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting
be magnified when children and youth with
ASD are educated in general education settings.
Accordingly, inclusion of learners with ASD in
typical classroom settings requires particularly
careful planning. The argument for such accen-
tuated planning is based on the fact that learn-
ers with ASD are increasingly being diagnosed
(i.e., there are ever-increasing numbers of these
students in public schools; (Accardo, Magnu-
sen, & Capute, 2000), and because there is an
ever-increasing trend to recommend them for
placement in general education settings (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000).
Significant debate continues over the efficacy
and appropriateness of recommending students
with ASD for placement in general education
settings. These often-strident debates are related
to the “least restrictive environment” provision
of the 1997 Reauthorized Individuals with Dis-
abilities Education Act (IDEA). This pivotal
element of IDEA stipulates that learners with
disabilities, including those with ASD, are
entitled to educational services in maximally
normalized settings that offer the greatest op-
portunities for contact with typical peers. Of
course, differences of opinion abound on the ap-
propriateness and interpretation of this require-
ment (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995; Mastropieri
& Scruggs, 2000; Stainback & Stainback, 1992).
Yet, as important as they are, these debates are
overshadowed by the reality that children and
youth with ASD, along with other learners with
special needs, are increasingly being served in
general education programs. Unfortunately, in
spite of this trend, few models and procedures
have been advanced to facilitate the successful
placement and maintenance of learners with
ASD in general education classrooms. Thus
teachers, related service professionals, parents,
and others are frequently faced with the daunting
task of designing inclusion programs for learn-
ers with ASD in the absence of clear guidelines
and procedural protocols. In response to this
important need, we offer a discussion of the
revised Autism Inclusion Collaboration Model,
originally presented in Educating Children and
Youth with Autism: Strategies for Effective Prac-
tice (Myles & Simpson, 1998). Specifically, the
purpose of this article is to present this model
and to discuss its use in facilitating the success-
117
ful general education inclusion of learners with
autism-related disabilities.
THE AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER
INCLUSION COLLABORATION MODEL
The Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion
Collaboration Model is designed to support
general educators who assume responsibilities
for teaching children and youth with autism.
As such, the following proactive assumptions
regarding the appropriateness of many students
with autism for general education placement
form the philosophic core of the model:
• students with ASD and their nondisabled
peers benefit from planned contact with one
another
• given appropriate support and resources, the
majority of general education teachers, staff
members, and administrators are agreeable
to having qualified students with ASD in
their classrooms
• general educators are willing and able to
effectively assume primary teaching re-
sponsibility for many students with ASD,
contingent on special educator and ancillary
staff support and other resources
The underpinning of the model is collabora-
tion. Thus it emphasizes shared responsibility
and shared decision making among general edu-
cators, special educators, and support person-
nel. The model also permits consideration of
both learner behaviors and instructional factors
(Koegel, Rincover, & Egel, 1996; Salend, 1990;
Warger & Pugach, 1996).
The Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Col-
laboration Model has five major components:
• environmental and curricular modifications,
general education classroom support, and
instructional methods
• attitudinal and social support
• coordinated team commitment
• recurrent evaluation of inclusion proce-
dures
• home-school collaboration (Figure 1)
Each model component is presented as a
discrete item; however, components are inter-
woven. Thus each component significantly af-
fects the others and cannot operate effectively
in isolation.
118 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003
Figure 1. Autism collaboration model.
Environmental and curricular modifications,
general education classroom support, and
instructional methods
For years, researchers, policy makers, and
administrators have called for appropriate in-
clusionary modifications and other supports for
general education teachers who assume primary
instructional responsibility for children and
youth with disabilities (Miller & Savage, 1995;
Myles & Simpson, 1989, 1990). For children
and youth with ASD, such modifications and
support are particularly important because of
their unique needs, including availability of ap-
propriately trained support personnel, reduced
class size, access to collaborative problem-solv-
ing relationships, adequate teacher planning
time, availability of paraprofessional, and inser-
vice training. Each of these areas is discussed in
the following sections.
Availability of appropriately trained support
personnel
The accessibility of knowledgeable and col-
laboratively oriented support service personnel
is essential to the successful placement and
maintenance of students with ASD and other
disabilities in general education settings. That is,
general education teachers who teach students
with ASD should be able to call on profession-
als from various disciplines to help implement
educational programs and demonstrate best-
practices methods. Professionals from a variety
of disciplines have determined that availability
of support services impacts student performance
and teacher attitude positively (Kellegrew,
1995; Salend, 1990). Indeed, general educa-
tion teachers have been found to lack support
for inclusion and the adoption of new instruc-
tional methods for students with disabilities
unless they receive assistance from qualified
resource personnel (Klinger, Argvelles, Hughes,
& Vaughn, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001;
Simpson & Myles, 1991). Further, parents and
support service personnel themselves seem to
agree that support services facilitate success-
ful inclusion. Because of the complex needs of
students with ASD, team support is particularly
necessary. For example, speech/language, mo-
tor, sensory, behavioral, and academic problems
evident in these children and youth necessitate a
multiperson, multifaceted approach to planning
and implementing a comprehensive program
(Dunlap & Fox, 1999; Jordan, 1999). When this
occurs, general education teachers tend to be
willing to accept students with ASD within their
classroom. Accordingly, the model presented
here strongly supports the notion that general
education teachers who assume primary respon-
sibility for students with ASD receive assistance
from social workers, psychologists, speech and
language pathologists, special educators, occu-
pational therapists, physical therapists, counsel-
ors, and other professionals as needed.
Accessibility to collaborative problem-solving
relationships
As more and more students with disabilities
are being served in regular education classes, the
need for collaborative relationships designed to
assist general education teachers plan for these
students is increasingly being recognized (Idol
& West, 1987; Warger & Pugach, 1996). His-
torically, data-based findings support teachers’
perceptions of the importance of consultation
(Miller & Sabatino, 1978). Klinger and col-
leagues (2001) provide a more current perspec-
tive that supports Miller and Sabatino’s research.
Specifically, they found that special educators
would implement and sustain the use of new
strategies with students with special needs when
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting
support was provided and when the instructional
methodologies became a part of the pedagogicl
culture of the school. General educators’ use of
the strategies helped them become a part of what
Klinger and others refer to as a “community of
practice.”
Although the terms consultation and collabo-
ration are often used interchangeably, Pugach
and Allen-Meares (1985) contend that there are
important differences between them. That is,
consultation may denote unequal status between
professionals, with specialists providing advice
to classroom teachers, whereas collaboration
implies equal status among team members who
share information, provide consultative support
to one another, and jointly problem solve.
The Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion
Collaboration Model accentuates collaborative
consultation. Although educators vary in their
desire for “expert advice,” it is our experience
that collaborative consultation is the most effi-
cient and effective means of supporting general
education teachers working with students with
ASD, and preparing them to generalize and sus-
tain problem-solving programs learned in col-
laborative consultative relationships. Future col-
laborative approaches will likely discontinue the
use of models whereby consultation exclusively
flows from expert to teacher in favor of more
transdisciplinary approaches (Peterson, 1987).
As a result, consultants will increasingly be ex-
pected not only to provide expert advice, but to
seek expertise from a variety of sources and to
coordinate the application of such expertise.
Because students with autism present mul-
tiple needs that transcend traditional “educator”
roles, educators who work with students with
ASD must be able to collaborate with nonschool
systems such as medicine, mental health, day
care, and so forth. Accordingly, they must be
knowledgeable about the services and the ex-
pertise each system can provide, as well as how
to access them and how to coordinate services
and expertise to best serve students.
Inservice training
It is often difficult for general educators to
teach children and youth with ASD, because
they do not have the necessary training and
background to understand the characteristics of
119
The Autism Spectrum Disorder
Inclusion Collaboration Model
supports general educators who
assume responsibilities for teaching
children and youth with autism.
this exceptionality, how to communicate with
persons with limited verbal skills, or academic
procedures that have been proven effective for
this population (Koegel et al., 1982).
Accordingly, the Autism Spectrum Disorder
Inclusion Collaboration Model supports con-
tinued inservice programs for general educators
who work with students with ASD. Both group
and individual inservice formats are used within
this model. Group inservices may be used to
provide a general body of information regarding
characteristics and needs of students with ASD,
and individual training may focus on specific
instructional techniques, intervention methods
and so forth (French & Cabell, 1993). Further,
both special and general educators require col-
laboration and consultation skill training to pre-
pare them for their new roles and, ultimately, to
ensure that students with ASD receive the best
possible services.
Inservice training programs for teachers may
be desirable in implementing inclusionary pro-
grams. Educators recognize the complex needs
of students with disabilities, including those
with autism, and have stipulated that training
programs should provide continuous support
and education. In this connection, “one-shot”
workshops or inservice programs are generally
considered ineffective (Cates & Yell, 1994).
Implementation of appropriate instructional
methods
Using appropriate instructional methods with
students with ASD when receiving education
within the general education environment con-
tribute to the success of the student’s program
and his or her progress. As stated previously,
children with autism lack many of the language,
learning, and social skills that a child needs to
function and learn within a typical education
environment. There are several techniques,
120 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003
methods, and accommodations that can easily
be made to enhance a student’s with ASD to
enhance his or her ability to receive and learn
from instruction provided within a general
education classroom. A checklist that provides
a list of these strategies as a reference for the
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team, and
in particular, the general education teacher and
instructional assistant appears in Table 1. Al-
though some items included within the checklist
may not pertain to every student with ASD, it
can assist in maintaining awareness of success-
ful techniques, methods, and accommodations,
as well as providing the IEP team with specific
instructional considerations when developing
the student’s goals and objectives and program.
Availability of paraeducators
As of 1980, more than 80,000 paraeduca-
tors worked in public school special educa-
tion programs (Pickett, 1980). This number
has continued to rise (Mastropieri & Scruggs,
2000; Blalock, 1991; Goodlad, 1990). Indeed,
paraprofessionals are considered to play an im-
portant role in supporting students with disabili-
ties (Jones & Bender, 1993; Simpson & Myles,
1990; Young et al., 1997), including children
and youth with ASD. In this regard, Karagianis
and Nesbit (1983) noted that paraeducators are
“…a necessary adjunct to the regular classroom
where the teacher has a defined responsibility
for handicapped children” (p. 19).
An important element of the Autism Spec-
trum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model is
that, to the extent necessary, paraeducators must
be available in general education settings to
support children and youth with ASD. Empha-
sis should be placed on training paraeducators
to work with students with ASD. In relation to
the area of ASD, they require knowledge re-
garding (1) characteristics, (2) communication
skills, (3) behavior management techniques,
(4) instructional methods, and (5) arrangement
of the educational environment (Young et al.,
1997; French & Cabell, 1993). Once trained,
paraeducators may assist with a variety of
tasks, including (1) helping students practice
previously taught academic and social skills, (2)
documenting student performance and progress,
and (3) assisting teachers with daily planning,
materials development, and curriculum modifi-
cation (Boomer, 1994).
It is not appropriate for paraeducators to
exclusively and constantly be assigned to a
student with ASD for the purpose of translating
teachers’ instructions and implementing all pro-
grams. In many instances, part-time assignment
of a paraeducator and use of a paraprofessional
with all students in a classroom is preferred. On
some occasions, students with ASD can com-
plete tasks with paraeducator assistance; when
this occurs, the student should be allowed to
work independently. Although the student with
ASD works independently, the paraeducator
can support other students in the classroom on
an as-needed basis. Nonetheless, availability of
paraeducators is considered to be an essential re-
source for effectively serving students with ASD
in the general education classrooms.
Adequate teacher planning time
With regard to placing students with autism in
general education classes, teacher planning time
is very significant. Additional planning time is
needed to permit teachers to individualize aca-
demic tasks, plan alternative or additional activi-
ties, and develop appropriate, individualized in-
structional methods. This time is also needed to
enable them to collaborate with others. Hence,
the Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Col-
laboration Model incorporates adequate plan-
ning time as an essential component.
Reduced class size
As a means for improving schools, the ef-
ficiency of our educational system could be
significantly improved by a reduction of the size
of the average general education class (Lewis
& Doorlag, 1999; Zionts, 1997). Smaller class
sizes are often seen to be extremely important
for students’ academic achievement, social and
personal development, and teacher job satisfac-
tion (Coutinho & Repp, 1999). Thus several
researchers have ascertained that reduced class
size facilitates increased student success, par-
ticularly for children and youth with disabilities
(Cates & Yell, 1994; Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad,
Slusher, & Saumell, 1996). Specifically, teach-
ers who have fewer students are often able to
better individualize instruction for students and
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting 121

Table 1. Checklist of instructional methods used with students with autism spectrum disorder
within general education classroom

Student Name: ___________________________ Observer: _______________________________

Date of Observation: ______________________

General Education Teacher/Paraeducator Use Appropriate:

Body Language

attention is paid to adult’s body movement; amount of movement around student, types of
movement (large, small, jerking, etc.)
attention is paid to adult’s proximity to student; “Velcro” phenomenon and hovering are
avoided (paraeducator does not sit consistently sit or stand next to student), proximity is
adjusted continually based on activity and needs of student
attention is paid to body positioning during a conversation or when providing assistance;
adult is at student’s level and does not obstruct visibility of teacher or access to materials
and peers
adults use modeling of appropriate action or behavior as a method of indirect prompting
Verbal Language
use of specific description words not general terms (i.e., not “good job,” but “good sitting”)
use of calm, even-toned firm voice in all situations; words used to praise, redirect, or correct
are not monotone nor high-pitched and abnormal, and anger, frustration, and anxiety are not
demonstrated in tone of voice
use of words which help student focus on activity or task and what he/she should be doing,
not on what he/she is doing inappropriately
use of statements and instructions that are firm and not in form of question; i.e., “let’s
do…,” “time for everyone to …,” “we need to …”
use of statements that give the student choices within the parameter of the activity; i.e.,
“now we’re going to … you may choose … or ….”
Task Analysis
tasks are broken down into individual steps, based on student’s needs; i.e., student is
provided with a numbered list of steps with reward for accomplishing each or student is
provided with only pertinent materials along with verbal directions for each step
instructional materials are modified (according to student’s needs) before presenting task to
student
paraeducator uses simplified verbal instructions to explain task or activity
adults use repetition to ensure mastery of concepts and skills
alternative outcomes (according to student’s needs) for tasks or activities are decided upon
before student participates and are imbedded within instructions
instructions are provided in method best understood by student: i.e., from whole to part, or
part to whole, or with visual cues or modeling, etc.
Transition Methods
use of incentives/prompts (motivation) to assist student with transitions from one place to
another or one activity to another; i.e., from home to school—provide a “job” student needs
to complete for class to start, from activity to activity—there is a natural reinforcer within
the next activity
use of warning (use consistent form) before ending an activity or task
do not describe next activity (while still completing another) if it is nonpreferred
use of data to assist in analyzing transitions—difficulties may not always lie in going from
preferred to nonpreferred

continues
122 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003

Table 1. Continued
Antecedent and Consequence Interventions
use of proactive/antecedent measures rather than reactive measures to prevent inappropriate
behaviors; maintain data on common antecedents to inappropriate behaviors
use of antecedent strategies to redirect or distract student from engaging in self-stimulatory
or other inappropriate display of behavior
use of incentives/rewards (motivation) to assist student in understanding benefit of engaging
in challenging task or engaging in appropriate behavior in a difficult situation
use of data to continually adjust behavior interventions; reduce need for implementing
consequences (if behavior continues to occur it is being reinforced)
use of logical and natural consequences for inappropriate behavior rather than arbitrary
consequences
use of logical and natural reinforcement for appropriate behavior rather than arbitrary or
primary reinforcers
Teacher/Paraeducator Facilitate Appropriate:
Imbedding of Goals and Objectives within Curriculum
adults use matrix which match goal and objective of student to activities, tasks, and
curriculum used within the class
use of data sheet that allows teacher/paraeducator to daily track progress of student’s skills
(goals and objectives)
teacher develops class-wide activities or tasks that uses student’s goal and objectives as
student-wide goals and objective
adults imbed social interaction opportunities within activity (as appropriate)
Task Completion
adults attend to student’s function of behavior if he/she is not completing a task or activity
(level or ability vs. difficulty of task; frustration vs. noncompliance)
adults provide instructions in method best understood by student; i.e., visual, auditory,
modeling, kinesthetic
adults use least intrusive prompts first when assisting student with task
adults use minimal physical prompting if student is stalling or verbal prompting that focuses
student on what to start doing (i.e., student is playing with pencil, adult physically puts
student’s hand with pencil over line for name and says “write your name”)
adults accept student’s efforts on task (even if incorrect) and redirect student without him/
her knowing (avoids student feeling as if he/she did something wrong)
avoid student’s need for perfection by modeling making mistakes, or being a little sloppy, or
showing him/her work of other students
Generalization of Skills
difficult tasks are pretaught in one-to-one situation before being introduced to group in
general education class
adults fade prompts each time the same task or activity is used
adults (initially) use immediate reinforcement throughout duration and upon completion of
known task within general education class
teacher (initially) uses words or phrases, which are familiar to the student, within delivery
of instruction
adults use similar materials that student used when initially acquiring the skill and gradually
introduce different materials
paraeducator (initially) restates instructions in simplified manner with familiar words
adults reinforce attending skills
Student Independence
adults wait before stepping in when student is experiencing difficulty
paraeducator acts as “paraeducator” to entire class and students are not told that he/she is
student’s with autism paraeducator

continues
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting 123

Table 1. Continued
adults use least intrusive prompt when providing assistance
adults allow student to make mistakes and develop problem solving skills; let student have
less than perfect products (as long as student is exerting honest effort)
adults are aware of student seeking affirmation or confirmation (approval) throughout a task
or activity and use planned ignoring (sometimes removing one’s presence)
adults ignore nondisruptive (is not interfering with instruction or activity) inappropriate
behavior (excess movement, less-obvious self-stimulatory behaviors, quiet noises)
use of data to analyze increase of independence by determining if student is completing
tasks and participating in activities with less and less prompting
Consistent Intervention
adults follow through with reinforcement system for appropriate behaviors
adults follow through with consequences for inappropriate behaviors
adults follow through with predetermined routines
adults follow through with warnings for transitions and changes in routines
adults follow through with implementation of class-wide rules, procedures and behavior
management system

© Copyright 2000 Sonja R. de Boer-Ott

use a wider variety of instructional methods
and more effectively manage their classes and
thereby experience fewer discipline problems.
For students with ASD, reduced class size is
of paramount importance, because they typi-
cally require high levels of teacher-student in-
teraction and classroom structure. Researchers
have found that these students learn best when
teacher-to-student ratios are small (Vaughn et
al., 1996). In addition, behavioral excesses and
deficits are most easily controlled when the
student has access to adequate teacher support.
These elements are often unavailable in class-
rooms containing large numbers of students.
There appears to be little question that re-
duced class size bodes well for students’ suc-
cess, including children and youth with ASD
in general education settings. Accordingly, an
integral feature of the Autism Spectrum Dis-
order Inclusion Collaboration Model is a class
size that permits general education teachers to
respond effectively to the individual needs of all
students.
Attitudinal and social support
It is widely recognized that students with
ASD require attitudinal and social support to
be truly integrated into a general education
classroom (Mesibov, 1992; Sasso, Simpson, &
Novak, 1985; Wing, 1992). Even before enact-
ment of P.L. 94-142, and, thus before IDEA’s
specific language of “least restrictive environ-
ment,” integration was a goal for a number of
disability organizations. In 1973, for instance,
The Association for Retarded Citizens called for
placement of individuals with disabilities in set-
tings “as close to normal as possible” (National
Association for Retarded Citizens, 1973, p. 72).
Moreover, even at relatively early stages of
special education program development, notes
of caution were expressed regarding the need to
carefully prepare environments to accommodate
students with disabilities. For example, Martin
(1974) warned that unless educators developed
strategies to create an accepting environment
for students with disabilities “we will be pain-
fully naive, and I fear we will subject many
children to a painful and frustrating educational
experience in the name of progress” (p. 150).
In spite of such cautionary notes, however,
limited attention has been paid to prepare gen-
eral education classroom settings to accommo-
date students with disabilities, including those
with ASD. Thus, in spite of the recognized im-
portance of teachers, school staff, and students
being aware and supportive of students with
ASD (Newman & Simpson, 1983; Sasso et al.,
124 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003
1985), few guidelines are available for creating
educational environments in which children and
youth with disabilities will thrive and experi-
ence acceptance. For example, guidelines for
teachers and students’ roles in facilitating so-
cial interaction of students with ASD have not
been defined. Research has validated several
interventions that enhance the social skills of
persons with ASD including direct instruction,
adult-mediated, and peer-mediated programs.
The attitudes of those associated with a given
school, including administrators, teachers,
parents, and students, in large measure deter-
mine the extent to which the Autism Spectrum
Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model (or
any other inclusion strategy) will be effective
(Gersten & Woodward, 1990; Klinger et al.,
2001). If school personnel are not supportive
of inclusion, it is likely that the inclusion ex-
perience will be short-lived for the student with
ASD. Persons holding the attitude that students
with ASD are not well-suited for inclusion will
create a self-fulfilling prophecy and the student
will not profit from the inclusionary environ-
ment.
With respect to administrator attitudes,
O’Rourke (1980) found a significant relation-
ship between teaching personnel’s and building
principals’ attitudes toward students with dis-
abilities. That is, building principals’ attitudes
set the tone for the overall school’s attitude,
including the attitudes of teachers and staff.
Accordingly, positive principal attitudes, as
well as administrative support for working with
all students (including those with ASD), are a
prerequisite for optimal educational benefits
for all students, including students with dis-
abilities in regular education classes (Heller &
Schilit, 1987; Vaughn et al., 1996). It is strongly
recommended that administrative personnel be
selected on the basis of their attitudes toward
individuals with disabilities and, specifically,
their willingness to accommodate these stu-
dents in their classes. Although it is possible to
modify administrators’ attitudes toward children
and youth with disabilities, it is far more effi-
cient to initially select educational leaders who
have positive attitudes towards inclusion and
students with ASD than attempting to modify
less than favorable attitudes.
Positive teacher attitudes are also determi-
nants of success for students with disabilities
in general education classes. General education
teachers typically view themselves to be ill-
equipped to deal with students with disabilities
(Helps, Newsom-Davis, & Callis, 1999; Miller,
1990; Vaughn et al., 1996). Nevertheless, they
tend to perceive inclusion as a positive educa-
tional practice, contingent on appropriate teacher
training and support (Klinger et al., 2001; Knoff,
1985; Moore & Fine, 1979; Reynolds, Martin-
Reynolds, & Mark, 1982; Stephens & Benjamin,
1981; Williams & Algozzine, 1979). Myles and
Simpson (1989) reported that 86% of the general
educators they surveyed were willing to accept
a student with a disability in their classrooms
on a full-time basis if appropriate support and
training were provided. Without such support
and training, on the other hand, less than 33%
of the teachers were willing to accept the same
student. Still, other studies have revealed differ-
ent findings. Some general education teachers
have indicated that they do not want to work
with students with special needs, including
those with ASD (Vaughn et al., 1996). Given the
impact of teacher attitude on student academic,
social, and behavioral success, school personnel
(general and special education administrators)
must carefully consider teacher attitudes when
placing students with ASD in general education
settings.
Parents of disabled and normally developing
children are also important stakeholders in the
inclusion process; thus successful integration of
students with ASD also hinges on their support
(Heller & Schilit, 1987; Vaughn et al., 1996).
Such a claim is best understood by examining of
the historical role of parents in the development
of special education programs. That is, it was
their activities and lobbying that brought about
virtually every important special education sys-
tem reform, including passage of P.L. 94-142. In
fact, as mentioned, many parents of children with
disabilities appear willing to place their children
in general education classrooms, contingent on
appropriate support (Abelson & Weiss, 1984;
Abramson, Wilson, Yoshida, & Hagerty, 1983).
Inclusion programs must include methods and
procedures that facilitate adults’ awareness and
acceptance of students in general education set-
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting
tings as necessary for social and psychological
integration to be achieved. In recognition of this
important, the element, the Autism Spectrum
Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model ad-
vocates disseminating information about indi-
viduals with ASD to students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and others. Such information
should include not only facts about the rationale
and advantages of inclusion, but information
about ASD as well.
Development of positive attitudes also re-
quires that inclusion stakeholders (e.g., teachers,
administrators, parents) be permitted to discuss
their roles, attitudes, and feelings about inclu-
sion, particularly as it relates to students with
ASD. Thus development of a supportive general
educational climate for students with ASD is
best accomplished by combining information
with opportunities for further discussion.
As in the case of adults who interact with
students with ASD, nondisabled peers also
require information and experiences designed
to familiarize them with the characteristics and
needs of students with ASD, foster more accept-
ing attitudes toward individuals with autism, and
promote better peer interactions (Hurley-Gef-
fner, 1995). Positive attitudes toward students
with disabilities, including those with ASD,
do not occur automatically. Accordingly, this is
frequently overlooked inclusion consideration
must be planned.
Use of curricula and experiences designed
to facilitate better understanding and sensitiv-
ity toward included students with disabilities
have proven effective (Fiedler & Simpson,
1987; Meyer, Park, Grenot-Scheyer, Schwartz,
& Harry, 1998). Several resources are available
for disseminating of information about ASD to
general education students as well as structur-
ing integration activities involving disabled
and nondisabled students (Baker, 2002). For
example, Simpson and Regan (1988) offer cur-
ricula for nondisabled students on such topics as
human differences and similarities, characteris-
tics of ASD, and making friends with students
with ASD. This resource also identifies methods
of structuring interactions between students with
ASD and their peers. Similarly, Quill (1990)
provides guidelines for integrating students
with ASD into a school, whereas Tomchek,
125
Gordon, Arnold, Handleman, and Harris (1992)
provide suggestions for facilitating inclusion of
preschool children with ASD. Although the edu-
cational and social needs of students with ASD
who are included vary, regardless, their peers
must receive information and experiences to al-
low individuals with ASD to be successful and
accepted.
Generally, children and youth with ASD will
lack social skills needed for assimilation and
acceptance in general education classrooms, un-
less they receive proper training and attention.
Thus a significant feature of the Autism Spec-
trum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model is
an emphasis on best-practices social interaction
training methods. These include:
• direct skill instruction (students receive
instruction and social skills needed for vari-
ous settings, including general education)
(Sasso, Melloy, & Kavale, 1990)
• antecedent prompting methods (students are
prompted by adults to engage in specified
interactive behavior with peers) (Odom &
Strain, 1986)
• peer-initiated training strategies (socially
competent peers are instructed in methods
for initiating and encouraging social inter-
actions with children with ASD in natural
settings) (Sasso & Rude, 1987)
• peer tutoring (socially competent peers are
instructed to use effective teaching tech-
niques with their classmates with ASD)
(Simpson, Myles, Sasso, & Kamps, 1997).
These social interaction enhancement meth-
ods are not only very useful but extremely flex-
ible as well (Sasso, 1987). Hence, they may vary
from setting to setting, depending on students’
needs, while still addressing the important issue
of fostering positive and accepting relationships
between children with ASD and their normally
achieving peers. Without such support students
with ASD are vulnerable to rejection and isola-
tion, which could destine them for failure an
otherwise successful inclusion program (Myles
& Simpson, 2001).
Coordinated team commitment
Special education and general education have
historically functioned as independent systems.
126 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003
Thus special educators have historically as-
sumed responsibility for students with disabili-
ties while in special education settings, whereas
general educators have been expected to assume
primary responsibility for students with dis-
abilities in inclusionary settings in addition to
“traditional” regular education students.
Often to the distress of general educators,
special educators have also historically assumed
primary responsibility for determining (1) if and
when needs the of students with disabilities can
appropriately be met in general education set-
tings, (2) which regular education programs
and teachers will best meet integrated students’
needs, and (3) how inclusion may most effec-
tively be accomplished. Not surprisingly, this
system, in combination with other imprudent
inclusion policies and activities, has weakened
many general educators’ motivation for inclu-
sion. Improvements in the way students with
ASD are integrated into general education can
be expected only with the support of and close
working relationship between general and spe-
cial educators (Sailor, Anderson, Halvorsen,
Doering, Filler, & Goetz, 1989). Thus a major
component of the Autism Spectrum Disorder
Inclusion Collaboration Model involves shared
responsibility by general and special educators
for students with autism. That is, general educa-
tors must accept that integrated students with
autism are their responsibility while in regular
education programs. In return, general educators
can expect full participation in decision-making
processes associated with inclusion (including
input regarding which students are appropriate
for inclusion!) along with appropriate support
(e.g., training, consultation).
Calls for shared ownership are not new (Heller
& Schilit, 1987; Hersh & Walker, 1983; Warger
& Pugach, 1996; Zionts, 1997). Yet, in spite of
widespread emphasis by both practitioners and
researchers on the significance of this variable
in developing successful inclusion programs,
it continues to present problems (Coutinho &
Repp, 1999; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow,
1992).
A first step toward coordinated team commit-
ment is to arrange schools such that they require
and reinforce coordination and communication
among faculty and staff. Coordination, in this
context, refers to the clear definition of roles for
service delivery personnel, especially individu-
als involved in including students with ASD.
Recognizing the importance of such reorgani-
zation, Judy Schrag (1990), former Director of
the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs,
observed that
special education program enhancements include bet-
ter coordination across special programs and general
education, increased roles of the building principals,
continued exploration of the circumstances under
which students with special needs can be educated
in the regular classrooms and exploration of refine-
ments in our assessment and classification procedures
(p. 7).
Coordination of special and general education
programs requires that individuals be aware of
their own as well as the responsibilities of oth-
ers. It is our contention that much discontent
among general education teachers concerning
inclusionary programs stems from a lack of
orchestration (e.g., role clarification) of school
personnel responsibilities. Hence a logical step
in dealing with this problem is to establish re-
sponsibility boundaries more clearly.
Related to achieving coordinated team
commitment, communication is the basis for
developing a collaborative relationship, the
philosophical underpinning of the Autism Spec-
trum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model.
Communication is the basis for involvement of
all inclusion stakeholders, including administra-
tors, parents, teachers, support personnel, and
students. Effective communication ensures that
involved persons are working toward the same
goals and that each person follows established
procedures (Vaughn et al., 1996). As often
stated, effective communication is the sine qua
non of effective general–special education col-
laboration.
The need for shared decision making and par-
ticipatory management has been recognized for
some time (Goodlad, 1990). Such organizational
systems increased involvement in decision mak-
ing, thus resulting in enhancing the well-being
of stakeholders and organizational efficiency
in meeting individual needs. These outcomes
have obvious importance for including persons
with ASD, and thus, as noted by a variety of
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting
educators, are worthy of serious pursuit (Clune
& White, 1988; Mertens & Yarger, 1988; Mas-
tropier & Scruggs, 2000; Walberg & Lane, 1989;
White, 1989).
RECURRENT EVALUATION OF
INCLUSION PRACTICES
“Assessment is a key component of any
program serving children with exceptionalities
and acts as an ongoing part of the instructional
strategy” (as cited in Simpson & Myles, 1996).
Ongoing evaluation of a student’s with special
needs progress within the general education is an
integral part of his IEP. After the IEP team has
developed the goals and objectives and made a
determination that at least some of the goals and
objectives can be met within the general educa-
tion environment, it crafts strategies to assess
the student’s progress. Thus the team begins the
process of continually reevaluating the appro-
priateness of meeting the student’s needs (goals
and objectives) within the general education
environment.
To successfully evaluate progress of a stu-
dent’s with ASD, a comprehensive assessment
must be undertaken. This process involves uti-
lizing the framework set up by the “least restric-
tive environment” requirement of IDEA (IDEA,
34CFR, Section 300.50; 20 USC 1412 (5)(A))
and the ensuing court case findings, which fur-
ther clarified and defined the intent of the LRE
doctrine (Ronker v. Walter [1983], Daniel R.R. v.
State Board of Education [1989], Greer v. Rome
City School District [1990], Oberti v. Board of
Ed. [1993], and Board of Ed. v. Holland [1994]).
This involves evaluating (1) the provision of
appropriate supplemental aides and services,
(2) the evidence of benefit from participation
and education, (3) the evidence of appropriate
facilitation of membership, and (4) the child’s
demonstration of appropriate participation. An-
other factor, which will not be addressed in this
article, is the cost of including the student within
the general education.
Upon evaluating whether or not appropriate
supplemental aides and service are being pro-
vided for a student with ASD, it is important
to determine if the student is able to receive
127
instruction within the general education class-
room. This involves determining if appropriate
and utilitarian accommodations and modifi-
cations are being made to the materials and
instruction methods, including the provision of
additional adult support (paraeducator) and as-
sistive technology. The needs of the particular
student determine the appropriateness of the
accommodations or assistance being provided,
not a general checklist of modifications and
services.
When analyzing the evidence of the student’s
benefit from participation and education within
the general education environment, two ques-
tions must be answered. First, is the student
socially benefiting from the general education
environment? The answer takes into consid-
eration whether the student diagnosed with
ASD demonstrates a meaningful awareness of
his or her peers, imitates the actions of adults
and peers, responds to interactions initiated
by adults and peers, demonstrates attempts to
initiate and respond to interaction, and seeks
social reinforcement for appropriate display of
behavior and completion of tasks. Second, is the
student with ASD academically benefiting from
the general education experience? The answer
to this question considers whether the student
is able to participate in academic activities at
increasingly independent level with or without
modifications, demonstrates acquisition of new
skills, demonstrates generalization of acquired
skills, and attends to group instructions.
Determining whether or not there is sufficient
evidence of appropriate facilitation of member-
ship involves a two-fold evaluation. First, it
needs to be apparent that the general education
teacher and students are respectfully treating the
student with ASD as a legitimate member of the
classroom. That is, it must be determined that
they are allowing the student to participate in all
the same activities with the class (according to
his or her ability), they speak to and interact di-
rectly with the student and not about him or her
or to the paraeducator, and they demonstrate an
acceptance of the child as an equal and valuable
member of the class.
It is also important to evaluate whether the
student with autism demonstrates appropriate
participation within the general education en-
128 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003
vironment by determining that he or she is not
inhibiting the successful delivery of instruction
by the teacher and receipt of instruction by the
typical students. This means that the student is
not consistently disrupting the class activities
and schedule by making loud noises, physically
running around the class, inappropriately han-
dling objects within the classrooms, or refusing
to complete a task or to transition to another
place or activity. This also means that the student
is contributing to a safe learning environment for
all students and does not consistently hit, kick,
or bite, people, or throw objects.
To appropriately determine if these factors
are being addressed satisfactorily, one needs to
observe and analyze several important compo-
nents of the general education environment and
the progress and development of the student’s
skills. In this connection, a checklist of the key
components contributing to the success of inclu-
sion of a student with autism has been developed
to facilitate a more objective and measurable
evaluation (Table 2). The checklist is designed
to remind the observer (with examples) what,
on the whole, should be observed, along with
the assumption that the observer will maintain
detailed notes on specific components or skills
within each category of the instrument. Some of
the items within the checklist do not pertain to
every student with ASD. After an observation,
the evaluator is able to identify areas of strengths
and weaknesses in the student’s program and
skill development within the general education
environment.
HOME-SCHOOL COLLABORATION
IDEA guarantees not only the right to a free
and appropriate education for all learners with
disabilities, but it also ensures the continuous
involvement of parents in educational plan-
ning, decision making, and implementation.
This clearly stated policy of support for parent
involvement represents a radical departure from
past attitudes and practices. Historically, parents
have often been blamed for their children’s edu-
cational problems and isolated from profession-
al decision making concerning the development
and support of their children with disabilities
(Pugach & Johnson, 1995). In contrast, current
policies and practices of allowing and encourag-
ing parent involvement in educational matters,
which affect their children, are mandated, and
ensure the right to involvement for all parents.
Thus related to successful inclusion of students
with ASD and implementation of the Autism
Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration
Model, the meaningful participation of parents
is essential. Involvement must be individual-
ized. However, we consider participation by
parents in inclusion-related activities to be an
indispensable part of an effective program.
Frea and Hepburn (1999) and Simpson and
Fielder (1989) identified several basic elements
needed for effective home-school collaboration.
These elements include development and main-
tenance of a collaborative home-school environ-
ment, application of collaboratively oriented
administrative arrangement, and a willingness
on the part of professionals to train parents and
family members to participate as a member of a
school team.
Creating the conditions for a collaborative
home-school environment begins with recog-
nition that parent-professional cooperation is
something that extends beyond legislation and
that interpersonal, not legislative, conditions are
the bases for meaningful parent and family in-
volvement (Simpson & Myles, 1989). Simpson
and Fielder (1999) specifically noted that the
foundation for such a relationship must involve
professionals’ willingness to listen, to recognize
that trust is a basic element of cooperation, to
be knowledgeable of and to accept of indi-
vidual values, and to demonstrate a willingness
to accommodate a partnership relationship. That
parents of children with ASD and professional
have often had less that optimal interpersonal
relationships underscore the importance of these
elements as salient ingredients of effective par-
ent-professional relationships.
Administrative arrangements and policies
also are determinants of effective parental in-
volvement. Indeed, meaningful involvement
between parents and professionals will likely
only occur when suitable administratively sup-
ported conditions are in place. Relative to
parents and families of learners with ASD, this
involves administrators providing encourage-
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting 129

Table 2. Checklist of key components contributing to the success of inclusion of students with
autism spectrum disorder

Student Name: ___________________________ Observer: _______________________________

Date of Observation: ______________________

Curriculum Delivery and Reception

method of delivery and type of instructions given for the activity
type and levels of accommodations/modifications made for student, i.e., directions written
out for him, paraeducator helps student assemble the needed materials, objective (level of
difficulty) is different for student, etc.
level and schedule of reinforcement used with the student during activities
level of adult and peer assistance provided to student during activities
level of apparent motivation demonstrated by student and related voluntary and independent
participation in activity
ability of student to transition between activities and follow the steps within the activity
type of curriculum and materials used (level appropriate for student and materials accessible
and easily manipulated)
Environmental Arrangements
student’s ability and current method of locating and using restrooms, water faucet, and
drinking fountain
location of student’s seat/desk within classroom related to equipment, door, window, peers,
teacher’s desk, and the teacher when providing group instruction—level of distractibility,
attending and supervision
seating arrangements used for circle time—location of student related front/teacher, peers
and materials/equipment—level of distractibility, attending, supervision (ease of adult
access)
student’s ability to appropriately access playground (motor ability to play on equipment,
remains accessible to supervisor, displays understanding of rules, socially interacts with
peers)
Interaction Amount/Type
between teacher and student
between paraeducator and teacher
between paraeducator and student
between teacher and typical students
between paraeducator and typical students
between student and peers (during academic and nonacademic activities)
between other adults (parent volunteers, other assistants, etc.) and student
student to adult ratio within class
instruction used by teacher (small group, large group lecture, cooperative groups,
independent)—student’s ability and success when participating in each type
instruction delivery (use of visual aides, auditory lecture, oral brainstorming with class—
asking for volunteers with information)—student’s ability and success when receiving and
expressing information
implementation of behavior plan (consistent use and meets students needs within general
education environment)
implementation of goals and objectives within classroom (consistent data and fading of
modifications and prompts)
implementation of reinforcement plan (consistent use, student preferred reinforcers, fading
rate of reinforcement, use of natural reinforcers as much as possible)

continues
130 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003

Table 2. Continued
Participation Level of Student
ability of student to sit for sustained period of time (on floor and/or in chair)
ability of student to imitate adults and peers
ability of student to follow classroom routine and procedures
ability of student to “wait” (for one’s turn, in line, to receive reinforcement)
ability of student to attend to teacher and other pertinent stimuli
motivation to participate in classroom activities
appropriate prompts provided by adults (may include eye contact, gestures, nodding/affirming
questions, giving individual instructions, individual physical prompting, use of student’s name
within instructions)
appropriate membership—either socially or academically (i.e., peers enjoy and include student,
student seeks to participate as some level, student demonstrates some awareness of environment,
student is able to participate at some appropriate level, student does not consistently disrupt the
class, nor interfere with delivery of instruction)
Attitudes of General Education Teacher/Paraeducators/Peers
willingness to include student within class (ways in which this willingness, or lack of, is
demonstrated to peers and student)
interest in and ability to work and interact with student during different activities (amount of
training received, level of instructional control, ability to motivate and include student within
each activity, body language around student, differences in interaction with student versus typical
students)
receptiveness to collaboration with, and suggestions and support from special education staff
initiation of problem-solving and implementation of new techniques with student

© Copyright 2000 Sonja R. de Boer-Ott

ment and reinforcement for participation and
demonstrating a willingness to share informa-
tion and procedures. Thus program and building
leaders should make it clear to parents that they
have access to documents regarding their child;
that they are free to have program information
and data; and that school professionals will as-
sist them in locating problem solving resources.
Such a willingness to share and inform not only
provides parents with valuable information, but
more importantly communicates the willingness
of school personnel to accommodate and share
decision making with parents (Webber, Simp-
son, & Bentley, 2000).
Training parents to be partners in the educa-
tional and inclusion process is also a required
part of developing an effective home-school
program. This component recognizes that many
parents of learners diagnosed with ASD will
want to participate. However, without suitable
training, their ability to understand and make
meaningful contribution may be limited. Ac-
cordingly, educators must at least offer to train
parents how to participate in IEPs and other
conferences. Such training will, of course, vary
in accordance with parent and family interests
and abilities. Nonetheless, appropriate parent
training must be recognized as a fundamental
element of forming and maintaining an effective
collaborative parent-professional partnership.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors are not convinced that every
student with ASD should be included in general
education classes. Nonetheless, it is recognized
that many children and youth with ASD can
and should be integrated into general education
classroom settings, and that inclusion will likely
continue. Moreover, we recognize that societal
and school changes will require that general and
special educators work together more effectively
to serve the needs of all students, including those
with ASD. Indeed, we take very seriously the
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting
warnings of legislators and the general public
that education will need to evolve or otherwise
dissolve.
Effectively and efficiently including students
with ASD will continue to be a significant chal-
REFERENCES
Abelson, A. G., & Weiss, R. (1984). Mainstreaming the
handicapped: The views of parents of nonhandicapped
pupils. Spectrum, 2, 27–29.
Abramson, M., Wilson, V., Yoshida, R. K., & Hagerty, G.
(1983). Parents’ perceptions of their learning disabled
child’s educational performance. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 6, 184–194.
Accardo, P., Magnusen, C., & Capute, A. (2000). Autism:
Clinical and research issues. Baltimore: York Press.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnosis and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revi-
sion). Washington D.C.: Author.
Asperger, H. (1944). Die “Autistischen Psychopathen”
im Kindasalter. Archiv fur Psychiatrie und Nerven-
krankheiten, 117, 76–136.
Baker, J. (2002). Social skills training of children with
Asperger syndrome, high functioning autism, and related
social communication disorder. Shawnee Mission, KS:
AAPC.
Blalock, G. (1991). Paraprofessionals: critical team mem-
bers in our special education programs. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 26(4), 200–214.
Board of Education v. Holland, 4 F3d 1398 (9th Circ.
1994).
Boomer, L. (1994). The utilization of paraprofessionals in
programs for students with autism. Focus on Autistic
Behavior, 9(2), 1–9.
Cates, D. L., & Yell, M. L. (1994). Service delivery models
and students with emotional disabilities and behavior dis-
orders: A rural perspective. Paper presented at the 14th
Annual National Conference of the American Council on
Rural Special Education, Austin, TX.
Clune, W. H., & White, P. A. (1988). School-based manage-
ment: institutional variation, implementation, and issues
for further research. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni-
versity, Center for Policy Research in Education.
Coutinho, M. & Repp, A. (1999). Inclusion: The integration
of students with disabilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F2d 1036 (5th
Circ. 1989).
Dunlap, G. & Fox, L. (1999). Administration of behavioral
support for young children with autism. Journal of Posi-
tive Behavior Interventions, 1, 77–87.
Fiedler, C., & Simpson, R. L. (1987). Modifying the attitudes
of nonhandicapped high school students toward handi-
capped peers. Exceptional Children, 53(4), 342–351.
Frea W. D., & Hepburn, S. L. (1999). Teaching parents of
children with autism to perform functional assessments
131
lenge for schools in coming decades. The use of
structured multifaceted models such as the Au-
tism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration
Model can significantly assist in this important
undertaking.
to plan interventions for extremely disruptive behaviors.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 112–116.
French, N., & Cabell, E. (1993). Are community college
training programs for paraeducators feasible? Commu-
nity College Journal of Research and Practice, 17(2),
131–140.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1990). Rethinking the regular
education initiative: Focus on the classroom teacher. Re-
medial and Special Education, 11(3), 7–16.
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greer v. Rome City School District, 762 F. Supp. 936 (N.D.
Ga. 1990); aff. 950 F2d 688 (11th Circ. 1990), withdrawn
and reinstated in part, 967 F2d 470 (11th Circ. 1990).
Happe, F. (1998). Autism: An introduction to psychological
theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Heller, H., & Schilit, J. (1987). The regular education
initiative: A concerned response. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 20, 1–6.
Helps, S., Newsom, D., & Callias, M. (1999). The teacher’s
view. Autism, 3, 287–298.
Hersh, R., & Walker, H. M. (1983). Great expectations:
Making schools effective for all students. Policy Review
Studies, 2, 147–188.
Hurley-Geffner, C. M. (1995). Friendships between children
with and without developmental disabilities. In R. L.
Koegel & L. K. Koegel (Eds.), Teaching children with
autism: Strategies for initiating positive interactions and
improving learning opportunities (pp. 105–126). Balti-
more: Brookes.
Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1987). Consultation in special educa-
tion (Part II): Training and practice. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 20(8), 474–494.
Jones, K., & Bender, W. (1993). Utilization of paraprofes-
sionals in special education: A review of the literature.
Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 7–14.
Jordan, R. (1999). Evaluating practice problems and pos-
sibilities. Autism: The International Journal of Research
and Practice, 3, 411–434.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective content.
The Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.
Karagianis, L., & Nesbit, W. (1983). Support services: The
neglected ingredient in the integration recipe. Special
Education in Canada, 53(3), 18–19.
Kauffman, J., & Hallahan, D. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of
full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current spe-
cial education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kellegrew, D. H. (1995). Integrated school placements for
132 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2003
children with disabilities. In R. L. Koegel & L. K. Koe-
gel (Eds.), Teaching children with autism: Strategies for
initiating positive interactions and improving learning
opportunities (pp. 127–146). Baltimore: Brookes.
Klin, A., Volkmar, F., & Sparrow, S. (2000). Asperger syn-
drome. New York: Guilford Press.[AQ13]
Klinger, J. K., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T. & Vaughn,
S. (2001). Examining the schoolwide “spread” of re-
search-based practices. Learning Disability Quarterly,
24, 221–234.
Knoff, H. M. (1985). Attitudes toward mainstreaming: A
status report and comparison of regular and special edu-
cators in New York and Massachusetts. Psychology in the
Schools, 22, 410–418.
Koegel, R. L., Rincover, A., & Egel, A. L. (1982). Educating
and understanding autistic children. San Diego: College
Hill.
Lewis, R. B. & Doorlag, D. H. (1999). Teaching special
students in general education classrooms. East Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Martin, E. (1974). Some thoughts on mainstreaming. Excep-
tional Children, 41, 150–153.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2000). The inclusive class-
room: Strategies for effective instruction. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2001). Promoting inclusion
in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly,
24, 265–274.
Mertens, S., & Yarger, S. J. (1988). Teaching as a profession:
Leadership, empowerment, and involvement. Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(1), 32–37.
Mesibov, G. B. (1992). Treatment issues with high-function-
ing adolescents and adults with autism. In E. Schopler &
G.B. Mesibov (Eds.), High-functioning individuals with
autism (pp. 143–155). New York: Plenum.
Meyer, L. H., Park, H. S., Grenot-Scheyer, M., Schwartz,
I. S., & Harry, B. (1998). Making friends: The influence
of culture and development. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Miller, L. (1990). The regular education initiative and school
reform: Lessons from the mainstream. Remedial and Spe-
cial Education, 11(3), 17–22.
Miller, T. L., & Sabatino, D. A. (1978). An evaluation of the
teacher consultant model as an approach to mainstream-
ing. Exceptional Children, 44(1), 86–91.
Miller, K. J., & Savage, L. B. (1995). Including general
educators in inclusion. In: Reaching to the future: Boldly
facing challenges in rural communities. Conference pro-
ceedings of the American Council on Rural Special educa-
tion (ACRES). Las Vegas, NC: March 15–18.
Moore, J., & Fine, M. J. (1979). Regular and special class
teachers’ perceptions of normal and exceptional children
and their attitudes toward mainstreaming. Psychology in
the Schools, 15, 253–259.
Myles, B. S., & Simpson, R. L. (1989). Regular educa-
tors’ modification preferences for mainstreaming mildly
handicapped children. Journal of Special Education,
22(4), 479–492.
Myles, B. S., & Simpson, R. L. (1990). Mainstreaming
modification preferences of parents of elementary-age
children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 23(4), 234–239.
Myles, B. S., & Simpson, R. L. (1998). Inclusion of students
with autism in general education classrooms: The autism
inclusion collaboration model. In R. Simpson & B. Myles
(Eds.), Educating children and youth with autism: Strate-
gies for effective practice (pp 241–256). Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Myles, B. S., & Simspon, R. L. (2001). Understanding the
hidden curriculum: An essential social skill for children
and youth with Asperger Syndrome. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 36, 279–286.
National Association for Retarded Citizens. (1973). The
right to choose. Arlington, TX: Author.
Newman, R. K., & Simpson, R. L. (1983). Modifying the
least restrictive environment to facilitate the integration
of severely emotionally disturbed children and youth.
Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 103–112.
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clemton
School District, 995 F2d 1204 (3rd Circ. 1993).
Odom, S. L., & Strain, P. S. (1986). A comparison of peer-
initiated and teacher-antecedent interventions for promot-
ing reciprocal social interaction of autistic preschoolers.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19(1), 59–71.
O’Rourke, A. P. (1980). A comparison of principal and
teacher attitudes toward handicapped students and the
relationship between those attitudes and school morale
of handicapped students. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 40(7-A), 3954.
Peterson, N. L. (1987). Early intervention for handicapped
and at-risk children. Denver CO: Love.
Pickett, A. L. (1980). Roles of paraprofessionals in school.
Education Unlimited, 2, 6–7.
Pugach, M. C., & Allen-Meares, P. (1985). Collaboration
at the preservice level: Instructional and evaluation ac-
tivities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 8,
132–143.
Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1995). Collaborative practitio-
ners, collaborative schools. Denver: Love Publishing.
Quill, K. A. (1990). A model for integrating children with
autism. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 5(4), 1–19.
Quill, K. A. (1995). Teaching children with autism: Strate-
gies to enhance communication and socialization. New
York: Delmar.
Reynolds, B. J., Martin-Reynolds, J., & Mark, F. D. (1982).
Elementary teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming
educable retarded students. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, 17, 171–176.
Ronker v. Walter, 700 F2d 1058 (6th Circ. 1983), cert denied,
474 U.S. 817 (1985).
Sailor, W., Anderson, J., Halvorsen, A. T., Doering, K.,
Filler, J., & Goetz, L. (1989). The comprehensive local
school: Regular education for all students with disabili-
ties. Baltimore: Brookes.
Salend, S. J. (1990). Effective mainstreaming. New York:
MacMillan.
Sasso, G. M. (1987). Social interactions: Issues and proce-
dures. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 2(4), 1–7.
Sasso, G. M., Melloy, K. J., & Kavale, K. A. (1990). Gener-
alization, maintenance, and behavioral covariation associ-
 Learners with ASD in General Education Setting
ated with social skill training through structured learning.
Behavioral Disorders, 16(1), 9–22.
Sasso, G. M., & Rude, H. A. (1987). Unprogrammed effects
of training high-status peers to interact with severely
handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 20, 35–44.
Sasso, G. M., Simpson, R. L., & Novak, C. G. (1985). Pro-
cedures for facilitating integration of autistic children in
public school settings. Analysis and Intervention in De-
velopmental Disabilities, 5, 233–246.
Scheuermann, B., & Webber, J. (2002). Autism: Teaching
does make a difference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schrag, J. (1990). Charting the course for the 1990’s. In
L. M. Bullock & R. L. Simpson (Eds.), Monograph on
critical issues in special education: Implications for
personnel preparation (pp. 2–8). Denton: University of
North Texas.
Simpson, R. L. (2001). ABA and students with autism
spectrum disorders: Issues and considerations for effec-
tive practice. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 16, 68–71.
Simpson, R. L., & Fiedler, C. R. (1989). Parent participation
in individualized education program (IEP) conferences: A
case for individualization. In M. J. Fine (Ed.), The second
handbook on parent education (pp. 145–171). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1989). Parents’ mainstream-
ing modification preferences for children with educable
mental handicaps, behavior disorders and learning dis-
abilities. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 292–301.
Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1990). The general educa-
tion collaboration model: A model for successful main-
streaming. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(4), 1–10.
Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1991). Ancillary staff
members’ mainstreaming recommendations for students
with exceptionalities. Psychology in the Schools, 28(1),
26–32.
Simpson, R.L. & Myles, B.S. (1996). The general education
collaboration model: A model for successful mainstream-
ing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(4), 1–10.
Simpson, R. L., Myles, B. S., Sasso, G., & Kamps, D. M.
(1997). Promoting social interactions of children and
youth with autism. Reston, VA: Council on Exceptional
Children.
Simpson, R. L. & Myles, B. (1998). Educating children
and youth with autism: Strategies for effective practice.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Simpson, R. L., & Regan, M. (1988). Management of autis-
tic behavior. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Spears, R., Tollefson, N., & Simpson, R. (2001). Useful-
ness of different types of assessment data in diagnosing
133
and planning for a student with high-functioning autism.
Behavioral Disorders, 26(3), 227–242.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (Eds.) (1992). Curriculum
considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating
learning for all students. Baltimore: Brookes.
Stephens, T. M., & Benjamin, L. B. (1981). Measures of
general classroom teachers’ attitudes toward handicapped
children. Exceptional Children, 46, 292–297.
Tomchek, L. B., Gordon, R., Arnold, M., Handleman, J., &
Harris, S. (1992). Teaching children with autism and their
normally developing peers: Meeting the challenges of inte-
grated education. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 7(2), 1–19.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Twenty-second an-
nual report to congress on the implementation of the indi-
viduals with disabilities act. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Sau-
mell, L. (1996). Teachers’ views of inclusion. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), 96–106.
Walberg, H. J., & Lane, J. J. (1989). Organizing for learning:
Toward the 21st century. Reston, VA: National Associa-
tion of Secondary School Principals.
Warger, C. D., & Pugach, M. C. (1996). Curriculum consid-
eration in an inclusive environment. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 28(8), 1–12.
Webber, J., Simspon R. L., & Bentley, J. (2000). Parents and
families of children with autism. In M. J. Fine & R. L.
Simpson (Eds.). Collaboration with parents and families
of children with exceptionalities (pp 303–324). Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
White, P. A. (1989, September). An overview of school-
based management: What does the research say? NASSP
Bulletin, 1–8.
Williams, R. J., & Algozzine, B. (1979). Teachers’ attitudes
toward mainstreaming. The Elementary School Journal,
80, 63–67.
Wing, L. (1992). Manifestations of social problems in high-
functioning autistic people. In E. Schopler & G. B. Mesi-
bov (Eds.), High-functioning individuals with autism (pp.
129–142). New York: Plenum.
Young, B., Simpson, R. L., Myles, B. S., & Kamps, D.
(1997). An examination of paraprofessionals involvement
in supporting inclusion of students with autism. Focus
on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12(1),
31–38.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. (1992).
Critical issues in special education. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Zager, D. (1999). Autism: Identification, education and
treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zionts, P. (1997). Inclusion strategies for students with
learning and behavior problems. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.