With the passing of IDEA states have been federally mandated to provide a free, appropriate public education to all children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment possible. It is interpretation of what constitutes the least restrictive environment and what is an appropriate education that leads to controversy amongst educators and policy makers when it comes to proving an education for students with special needs. By 1999 47.4% of students with disabilities spent more than 80% or more of their day in a general education classroom as compared to just 25% in 1985 (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Clearly the number of students with disabilities being served in the regular education setting is increasing with no clear solutions of how to best serve these students as well as their typically developing peers. This article attempts to look at the principle and practice of inclusion in the general education environment for all students, regardless of ability.
Inclusion: Inclusion implies membership in the school community and follows the philosophy that children with disabilities would not be isolated or segregated into separate schools, classes or pull-out sessions (Nelson, Palonsky and McCarthy, 2004).
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): LRE was established as part of PL 94-142 and states that to the maximum extent possible children with disabilities should be educated with their non-disabled peers (Public Law 94-142).
Inclusion has its roots in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision of (1954) that stated separate classrooms were not equal. The ruling initially only applied to students of color, race, religion and ethnicity. Ironically, John Davis, the attorney representing South Carolina in the appeal of Brown v. Board said in his opening argument before the Supreme Court “….If it (case against the Board of Education) should prevail, I am unable to see why a state would have any further right to segregate its pupils on the ground of sex, or on the ground of age, or on the ground of mental capacity” (Friedman, 1969). Although Davis’ prediction would prove true, it wouldn’t be for almost 20 years that the doors would begin to open for students with disabilities when Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) would decide that a lack of funds within the district was not an excuse for exclusion of students with disabilities.
The 1975 passing of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act stated that all learners between the age of 3 and 21 with handicaps (i.e. hearing or visual impairments, physically disabled, emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded or who have special learning disabilities) would be provided: a free public education with an individualized education program developed by the school and parents, that each student would be placed in the least restrictive environment(LRE) that was appropriate and that parents would have approval rights in placement decisions (Public Law 94-142). LRE refers to the idea that to the maximum extent possible all children with disabilities should be educated with their typically developing peers, while FAPE maintains that students with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education. Modifications to this law over the years have extended FAPE to not only include physical placement, but also guarantees the right to access the general education curriculum (Kluth, Villa & Thousand, 2002).
Early interpretation of this law generally meant those students with mild learning disabilities and speech impairments would be included in the general education learning environment. By the early 1980’s interpretation began to include those with moderate to severe disabilities, and by the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the idea of inclusion meant that in principle and practice general education was the placement of first choice for all learners and that supports and services based on individual need would be brought into the classroom setting, rather than the student being removed (Villa & Thousand, 2003).
Interpretation of what constitutes a least restrictive environment or even how to provide an appropriate education differs from state to state and even district to district. One philosophy is that mere physical access to the general education setting where the standard curriculum is delivered meets these guidelines, while others believe that to insure success of included students as well as their non-disabled peers the curriculum should be modified both in content and how it is delivered so that all students receive educational benefit (Villa & Thousand, 2003).
What the law says:
Brown v Board of Education clearly states that under no circumstance does separate but equal constitute equal (Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954). Under IDEA and supporting court decisions, inclusion of all students is required unless the severity of the disability is such that educational benefit would not be achieved in a general education classroom (Kluth, Villa, & Thousand, 2002). While these laws seem to clearly support inclusion of all students there are those that would contend that was not the original intent of the law (Villa & Thousand, 2003). Nelson, Palonsky & McCarthy (2004) argue the placement of disabled children into regular education classrooms places physical, mental and emotional challenges that not only should not be mandated but also is not appropriate.
What society says:
Vargas (1999) states that inclusion is consistent with the fundamental principles of our society. Social policy goals as listed by Sailor, Gerry, & Wilson (1991) include “Assuring the integration and participation of all citizens within the social, economic, and political fabric of American communities” implying that full participation in society requires full participation in schools (Nelson, Palonsky, & McCarthy, 2004). Amusingly, proponents of special education classes proudly claim a declassification rate of special education students of 4 to 9 percent annually as proof that special education classes are effective (Carlson & Parshall, 1996). That full inclusion for all is based on societal norms is a fallacy and is merely an unrealistic, utopian idea is the argument laid forth by Nelson, Palonsky, & McCarthy (2004). In as much as inclusion proponents would like to believe otherwise Palonsky (1975) has found that subcultures within the school settings create environments of despair for those with disabilities.
With respect to teachers:
While there is evidence that teacher education programs do not prepare teachers to deal effectively with the concept of inclusion (Villa, Thousand, & Chapple, 1996) this deficiency can be quickly remedied by requiring a minimum of core classes that integrate the latest knowledge from research in special education. In fact, Lombardi and Ludlow (1996) have found that the single most reported reason for inclusion failure was due to students being placed in classes without adequate support and without preparing school staff. Even with additional training, Nelson, Palonsky & McCarthy (2004) have found that inclusion limits regular classroom teachers by requiring extra time and energy from them, thereby taking away from the regular education students.
With respect to students:
In order to be successful, full inclusion requires individual instruction with appropriate materials for all students (Nelson, Palonsky, McCarthy, 2004). Semmel, Gottlieb, & Robinson (1979) found that special needs students did at least as well academically in regular education classrooms as they did in separate special classrooms. However, while Carlberg and Kavale (1980) reported that students with special needs had improved social interactions when included in the regular education environment, the rate of misconduct of students with disabilities was listed as three times as high as for regular students (“Student Discipline: Individuals with Disabilities Act,” 2001). In addition, Kennedy and Fisher (2001) found that fewer than half of the students who receive special education services graduate with a diploma and argue that placing all students in regular classrooms would reduce that number even lower.
It is clear that the principle of full inclusion for all students is a highly controversial issue in today’s circle of educators, parents, and advocates of students with special needs. When the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) was being considered 1 million out of 8 million disabled children were completely excluded from their typically developing peers in the nation’s public schools (Dickman, 1985). With the passing of this law and subsequent modifications and supporting court cases an attempt to remedy this situation has begun. Thirty years later improvements and gains have been made, but there is still much to do. In order to insure an individualized and appropriate education for all students, regular education and special education teachers need to work together to design and implement curriculum and teaching strategies that are effective in addressing the needs of all students. Administrators need to be aware of best practices for all students, and supportive of their staff in implementing these practices. Continued research in the area of special education and full inclusion specifically is necessary to determine successful strategies, as well as those that are not effective, so that needed changes can be made.
Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)
Social Skills Problems
Asperger’s Syndrome