Kids, Schools and Disabilities

[Guest guest]

http://www.kidstogether.org/noinclusion.htm

KIDS TOGETHER, Inc.

Inclusion

" Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion " and Other Legal Blunders

a Kluth, A. Villa and S. Thousand

Common misunderstandings about schools' legal responsibilities under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act have slowed implementation

of the law. School authorities who understand the law can provide a

better education for all students.

In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

(Public Law 94-142), guaranteeing for the first time that all students

with disabilities would receive a public education. The law, whose name

changed in subsequent reauthorizations in 1990 and 1997 to the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 101-476; Public

Law 105-17), set the stage for inclusive schooling, ruling that every

child is eligible to receive a free and appropriate public education and

to learn in the least restrictive environment possible. Specifically,

the law ensures

that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,

including children in public or private institutions and other care

facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled.

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5])

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education

Programs issued policy guidelines stating that school districts cannot

use the lack of adequate personnel or resources as an excuse for failing

to make a free and appropriate education available, in the least

restrictive environment, to students with disabilities.

Schools have taken much time to implement the law. Although many schools

and districts have been educating students with disabilities in

inclusive settings for years, families often still have to fight to get

their children into general education classrooms and inclusive

environments.

An analysis of U.S. Department of Education reports found that in the

dozen years between 1977 and 1990, placements of students with

disabilities changed little. By 1990, for example, only 1.2 percent more

students with disabilities were in general education classes and

resource room environments: 69.2 percent in 1990 compared with 68

percent in 1977. Placements of students with disabilities in separate

classes declined by only 0.5 percent: 24.8 percent in 1990 compared with

25.3 percent in 1977. And, students with disabilities educated in

separate public schools or other separate facilities declined by only

1.3 percent: 5.4 percent of students with disabilities in 1990 compared

with 6.7 percent of students with disabilities in 1977 (Karagiannis,

Stainback, & Stainback, 1996).

More recently, the National Council on Disability (2000) released

similar findings. Investigators discovered that every state was out of

compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act and that U.S. officials are not enforcing compliance. Even

today, schools sometimes place a student in a self-contained classroom

as soon as they see that the student is labeled as having a disability.

Some students enter self-contained classrooms as soon as they begin

kindergarten and never have an opportunity to experience regular

education. When families of students with disabilities move to a

different district, the new school sometimes moves the student out of

general education environments and into segregated classrooms.

In some cases, districts may be moving slowly toward inclusive

education, trying to make a smooth transition by gradually introducing

teachers and students to change—but moving slowly cannot be an excuse

for stalling when a learner with a disability comes to school requiring

an inclusive placement.

Clearly, more than 25 years after the law came into effect, many

educators and administrators still do not understand the law or how to

implement it. Three common misunderstandings still determine decisions

about students with disabilities in U.S. schools.

" Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion "

We often hear teachers and families talking about inclusion as if it

were a policy that schools can choose to adopt or reject. For example,

we recently met a teacher who told us that her school " did inclusion,

but it didn't work, " so the school " went back to the old way. "

Similarly, a parent explained that she wanted her child to have an

inclusive education, but her neighborhood school doesn't " have

inclusion. "

Special education is not a program or a place, and inclusive schooling

is not a policy that schools can dismiss outright. Since 1975, federal

courts have clarified the intent of the law in favor of the inclusion of

students with disabilities in general education (Osborne, 1996; Villa &

Thousand, 2000a, 2000b). A student with a disability should be educated

in the school he or she would attend if not identified as having a

disability. The school must devise an individualized education program

that provides the learner with the supports and services that the

student needs to receive an education in the least restrictive

environment possible.

The standard for denying a student access to inclusion is high. The law

clearly states that students with disabilities may be removed from the

regular education environment only when 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.

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5])

If schools can successfully educate a student with disabilities in

general education settings with peers who do not have disabilities, then

the student's school must provide that experience.

" She Is Too Disabled to Be Educated in a Regular Classroom "

A special education teacher recently told us that she was interested in

inclusive schooling and that she decided to " try " it with one of her

students. , a young student with Down's syndrome, began 1st

grade in Sept-ember, but the school moved her back to a special

education classroom by November. The teacher told us how difficult the

decision had been and explained why educators had changed 's

placement: " The kids really liked her and she loved 1st grade, but she

just wasn't catching on with the reading. She couldn't keep up with the

other kids. "

Many families and teachers have the common misperception that students

with disabilities cannot receive an inclusive education because their

skills are not " close " enough to those of students without disabilities.

Students with disabilities, however, do not need to keep up with

students without disabilities to be educated in inclusive classrooms;

they do not need to engage in the curriculum in the same way that

students without disabilities do; and they do not need to practice the

same skills that students without disabilities practice. Learners need

not fulfill any prerequisites to participate in inclusive education.

For instance, a middle-school social studies class is involved in a

lesson on the U.S. Constitution. During the unit, the class writes its

own constitution and bill of rights and reenacts the Constitutional

Convention. Malcolm, a student with significant disabilities,

participates in all these activities even though he cannot speak and is

just beginning to read. During the lesson, Malcolm works with a peer and

a speech and language therapist to contribute one line to the class bill

of rights; the pair uses Malcolm's augmentative communication device to

write the sentence. Malcolm also participates in the dramatic

interpretation of the Constitutional Convention. At the Convention,

students acting as different Convention participants drift around the

classroom introducing themselves to others. Because he cannot speak,

Malcolm—acting as Mason—shares a little bit about himself by

handing out his " business card " to other members of the delegation.

Other students are expected to submit three-page reports at the end of

the unit, but Malcolm will submit a shorter report, a few sentences,

which he will write using his communication device. His teacher will

assess Malcolm's grade on the basis of his report and participation in

the class activities, his demonstration of new skills related to

programming his communication device, and his social interactions with

others during the Constitutional Convention exercise.

The Constitutional Convention example illustrates how students with

disabilities can participate in general education without engaging in

the same ways or having the same skills and abilities that others in the

class may have. In addition, this example highlights ways in which

students with disabilities can work on individual skills and goals

within the context of general education lessons. Most important, his

teachers designed and put in place the supports and adaptations that

Malcolm needed for success. Malcolm did not have to display all the

skills and abilities of other students to participate. Instead,

Malcolm's teachers created a context in which Malcolm could demonstrate

competence.

For Malcolm to be successful in his classroom, his teachers need to

provide him with a range of " supplemental supports, aids, and services, "

one of the law's requirements (Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5]). Supports, aids, and services might

include a piece of assistive technology, use of an education consultant,

instruction from a therapist, support from a paraprofessional, peer

tutors, different seating or environmental supports, modified

assignments, adapted materials (such as large-print books, graphic

organizers, or color-coded assignment books), curriculum that is

differentiated to meet the needs of the learner, time for teachers'

collaborative planning, coteaching, training for school personnel, or

any number of other strategies, methods, and approaches. Schools do not

need to provide every support available, but they must provide those

required by the student with disabilities.

Families do not have to prove to the school that a student with

disabilities can function in the general classroom. In Oberti v. Board

of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (1993), for

example, a U.S. circuit court determined that the neighborhood school of

Raphael Oberti, a student with Down's syndrome, had not supplied him

with the supports and resources he needed to be successful in an

inclusive classroom. The judge also ruled that the school had failed to

provide appropriate training for his educators and support staff. The

court placed the burden of proof for compliance with the law's inclusion

requirements squarely on the school district and the state instead of on

the family. In other words, the school had to show why this student

could not be educated in general education with aids and services, and

his family did not have to prove why he could. The federal judge who

decided the case stated, " Inclusion is a right, not a special privilege

for a select few. "

" We Offer Special Programs Instead of Inclusion "

A few years ago, one of us went to a neighborhood school to vote. To get

to the ballot machines, voters had to walk down a long hallway to a

classroom marked Autistic Center. Knowing that the district had been

providing inclusive education to many students with disabilities, we

were surprised to learn that although students with mild disabilities

were in general education classrooms, others were still in " special

programs. " The teacher in the Autistic Center was responsible for

educating all the district's students who were diagnosed with

autism—eight learners, ages 6 to 14.

Across the United States, many school districts still operate programs

for discrete groups of students. Separate programs and classrooms exist

for students identified with certain labels—emotional disabilities, for

example—and for students with perceived levels of need, such as severe

or profound disabilities. In many cases, students enter these

self-contained settings without an opportunity to receive an education

in a general classroom with the appropriate aids and services.

In 1983, the Roncker v. Walter case challenged the assignment of

students to disability-specific programs and schools. The ruling favored

inclusive, not segregated, placement and established a principle of

portability. The judge in the case stated,

It is not enough for a district to simply claim that a segregated

program is superior. In a case where the segregated facility is

considered superior, the court should determine whether the services

which make the placement superior could be feasibly provided in a

nonsegregated setting (i.e., regular class). If they can, the placement

in the segregated school would be inappropriate under the act (IDEA).

(Roncker v. Walter, 1983, at 1063)

The Roncker court found that placement decisions must be determined on

an individual basis. School districts that automatically place students

in a pre-determined type of school solely on the basis of their

disability or perceived level of functioning rather than on the basis of

their education needs clearly violate federal laws.

Benefits of Understanding the Law

Implementation of the law is still in its infancy, and educators are

still learning about how the law affects students in their classrooms.

Reviewing the intent and language of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act will help administrators shape districtwide or

school-based policies and procedures; evaluate the ways in which

programs are labeled and implemented; and make more informed decisions

about student assessment, placement, and service delivery.

Administrators should also consider the following questions:

Are all students in the least restrictive environment?

Are we providing students with disabilities with the necessary

supplemental supports, aids, and services?

Do teachers and administrators understand their responsibilities under

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?

Do teachers and administrators talk about inclusive education as if it

were a choice that can be made by a school or by a teacher?

Do school personnel require additional training?

School district leaders and school principals who understand the federal

law can avoid lawsuits, enhance education experiences for students with

and without disabilities, and move toward the development of school

communities that are egalitarian, just, and democratic for all.

References

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law 94-142

(1975).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

(1997).

Karagiannis, A., Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1996). Historical

overview of inclusion. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion:

A guide for educators (pp. 17–28). Baltimore: s.

National Council on Disability. (2000, January 25). Back to school on

civil rights. (NCD #00-283). Washington, DC: Author.

Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School

District, 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).

Osborne, A. G. (1996). Legal issues in special education. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S.

864 (1983).

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (Eds.). (2000a). Restructuring for caring and

effective education. Baltimore: s.

Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2000b). Setting the context: History of and

rationales for inclusive schooling. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.),

Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle

together (pp. 7–37). Baltimore: s.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a Kluth (pkluth@...)is an assistant professor in the Department

of Teaching and Leadership, Syracuse University, 150 Huntington Hall,

Syracuse, NY 13244. A. Villa (ravillabayridge@...) is

President, Bayridge Consortium, 767 Pebble Beach Dr., San Marcos, CA

92069. S. Thousand (jthousand@...) is a professor in

the College of Education, California State University–San Marcos, San

Marcos, CA 92096.

Copyright © 2001 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development

Volume 59 Number 4 December 2001/January 2002

http://www.ascd.org/