Search results

States that historically, students with disabilities in the public schools in the USA were subjected to discrimination in the form of segregation from non‐disabled students. Also reports that much of this discrimination has subsided in recent years owing to successful advocacy by parents and community organizations before the Congress of the United States and both the federal and state judiciary. Reveals that national legislation was created so as to protect the education rights of such students and the courts have provided tests for their integration into school systems. Notes that, currently, there is some concern that this advocacy has gone too far and that court decisions authorizing “full inclusion” misinterpret the full extent of the law. Examines the scope of education for disabled children and provides a legal analysis of the educational placement of students with disabilities in the “least restrictive environment”.

The essential obligation of special educators under the law known as individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) is to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all students identified as having a disability. A secondary and related obligation is to provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE). To assist a student's individualized education program (IEP) or placement team to determine the setting in which a student will receive a FAPE, the IDEA mandates that school districts have available a continuum of placements (CAP) in which the team will choose the least restrictive and appropriate setting in which the student will receive their special education and related services. Our purpose in this chapter is to explain these requirements and why following the chronological order of determining FAPE and then LRE when developing a student's special education program is critical to meeting the IDEA's programming and placement mandates. We also explain why determining FAPE in the LRE cannot be accomplished without using the CAP.

The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act address factors to consider in educating students with and without disabilities together to the maximum extent appropriate. This chapter is designed to examine the origins and evolving interpretations of the LRE concept in special education policy and practice. Discussion traces the evolution of the concept as a legal principle, and reviews its application to educational strategies for students with learning and behavioral disabilities in contemporary schools. In conclusion, the future of the LRE concept is addressed in light of competing policies promoting presumptive inclusive education, and publicly funded school choice programs promoting greater involvement of parents in choosing where their children with and without disabilities should be educated.

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) receive educational and related services within a continuum of placement options per the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. The continuum of placement options ranges from fully included general education type classrooms to more restrictive environments such as alternative education settings, residential facilities, and schools within secure juvenile justice facilities. A specific placement option is based on the individualized academic and social needs of the student and includes the least restrictive environment to meet those needs. After the IFSP or IEP team develops a student's IFSP or IEP, then the team makes a placement decision. Multiple factors influence initial placement decisions including an overall reluctance to identify students with E/BD, false positives and negatives, co-morbidity, and disproportionality. Other factors may influence a temporary or long-term change in placement such as inappropriate student behavior and/or academic failure. No matter the placement, the educational services provided within each should be evidence-based, implemented with fidelity, be individualized, and be socially valid.

During the last decade, school districts throughout the United States have implemented inclusion programs utilizing a variety of models. A growing number of school districts are including all students with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities, into general education classrooms (Thousand & Villa, 1990). Although the term inclusion has no legal definition, and has been interpreted by educational professionals in a variety of ways, the concept has been in existence under the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of PL 94-142, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 101-476, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and most recently within PL 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997. According to IDEA (1997), public education agencies are required to ensure that: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [Authority 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)].The concept of inclusion has been defined in various ways within the literature. Catlett and Osher (1994) reviewed policy statements of professional organizations and found at least seven different definitions for inclusion. Currently, in education, inclusion is the term used when students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms for a portion of the school day (Falvey et al., 1995b). The term inclusion is differentiated from mainstreaming. Mainstreaming refers to the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate instructional support (Meyen, 1990). When students are mainstreamed, they are usually prepared prior to placement into general education and are expected to “keep up” with the general classroom expectations (Rogers, 1993). Students with disabilities who are mainstreamed receive the same or nearly the same curriculum as general education students and are expected to “fit” into the general curriculum and classroom. On the other hand, within inclusive programs, the general education teacher is expected to make adaptations to provide a suitable environment for students with disabilities. Within the literature on inclusion, there are a variety of interpretations of the definition of inclusion (e.g. Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Rogers, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1984). For the purposes of this chapter, inclusion is defined as programs in which students with disabilities (with the exception of gifted) are eligible for special education, have an individualized education program (IEP), and receive their education in general education classrooms using different, modified, and/or additional curricula from students without disabilities. This definition of inclusion is similar to “selective inclusion” as described by Zionts (1997). Selective inclusion refers to partial general education class placement of students with disabilities (Zionts). The assumption that this definition is based on is that general education is not always appropriate for every student; some students may benefit by receiving individualized services in addition to general education.

Students with an intellectual disability historically faced exclusion in both schools and in their communities. Through court cases, legislation, and parental advocacy, students with an intellectual disability were awarded the right to an education, and under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, an education in the least restrictive environment. This chapter explores the historical and current state of inclusion for students with an intellectual disability as well as the current and historical research base regarding inclusive educational placements for students with an intellectual disability. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the future of inclusive education for students with an intellectual disability.

Educating students with disabilities in the same classrooms and instructional environments as their natural neighbors and peers (i.e., inclusion) is a promise of significant substance and value for many special educators. When federal legislation mandated that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate education in least restrictive environments, at least in principle, the schoolhouse doors were opened for all students. In this chapter, we provide a brief historical review of efforts to educate students with disabilities in inclusive environments and provide direction for what we believe are important practices for creating high-quality inclusive learning environments.

Before discussing educational placement issues related to learners with special needs, definitions related to inclusion need to be presented. It is important to note there is no universally accepted definition of inclusion; thus, this term holds different meanings to different individuals (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Furthermore, the terminology has also changed over the decades (McLeskey, 2007). During the 1960s through the early 1980s, the term mainstreaming was used. The terms of integration and regular education initiative were used throughout the 1980s. From the late 1980s through the present, the preferable term has been inclusion. Schwartz (2005) optimistically stated that an inclusive program is “one that provides educational intervention to students with and without disabilities in a common setting and provides appropriate levels of instruction and support to meet the needs of all students” (p. 240). Others have defined inclusion “as the practice of educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom setting” (Zinkil & Gilbert, 2000, p. 225). The meaning of inclusion has been defined differently from the term mainstreaming, which has been defined as “when students…earn their way into the general educational classroom…with minimal, if any, special education assistance” (Zinkil & Gilbert, 2000, p. 225). For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of inclusion provided by Zinkil and Gilbert (2000) will be used.

In this chapter, the author reflects on nearly 40 years of professional experience in the field of special education. She offers personal perspectives and comments based on a variety of professional and personal experiences, including (1) teaching public school and college; (2) delivering professional development to school staff; and (3) coaching young adults who are creating independent adult lives after receiving special education during their school years. Her comments are also based on her personal experience as the parent of two young adults who needed special education services during their school years. Thus, the author writes with a unique perspective on special education. Among the current practices on which she comments are (1) variations on the process of response to intervention; (2) the role of the IEP; (3) the importance of curriculum and instruction; (4) the changing demographics of disability; (5) misunderstanding of the concept of least restrictive environment; and (6) the overwhelming volume of paperwork involved in the special education process. Special education practices between 1982 and 2010 are then contrasted with present-day implementation. Finally, the author proposes needed changes in special education and considers ways in which it might be improved in the future. This chapter provides a retrospective on special education through the years, offering both realistic criticisms and reasons for optimism.

There is a clear national trend toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. This trend poses particularly vexing challenges for delivering appropriate programs for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). This chapter describes the complexity of determining appropriate inclusive placements for students with EBD within the historical, legal, and philosophical context of inclusion and related to what we know about these students and how we can improve outcomes. Recommended practices for maximally appropriate placements include a comprehensive approach that integrates academic and behavioral interventions, and robust professional development in research-validated instructional practices for teachers. Shifting roles and shared responsibility of the professionals who are now working with students with EBD must be considered. Finally, issues currently being addressed that will shape the future direction of service delivery for students with EBD are discussed including the need for systematically and objectively manipulating key variables, including educational placement, to impact student achievement across settings.