Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion and other legal blunders

[Guest guest]

From: AutismRecoveryNetwork [mailto:AutismRecoveryNetwork ] On Behalf Of Kim HammonsSent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:06 PMTo: IPUT4UniversalEducationandAdvocacy ; IPUT4-TampaAutism ; partners-n-policymaking2006 Subject: [AutismRecoveryNetwork] "Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion"

Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion? Up ?? Components of inclusive education ?? Benefits of Inclusive Education ?? Inclusion. It's not for everyone? ?? Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion ?? Inclusion Links ?"Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion"and Other Legal Blundersa Kluth, A. Villa and S. Thousand Common misunderstandings about schools' legal responsibilities under theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act have slowed implementation ofthe law. School authorities who understand the law can provide a bettereducation 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 withdisabilities would receive a public education. The law, whose name changedin subsequent reauthorizations in 1990 and 1997 to the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (Public Law 101-476; Public Law 105-17), set thestage for inclusive schooling, ruling that every child is eligible toreceive a free and appropriate public education and to learn in the leastrestrictive environment possible. Specifically, the law ensures that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,including children in public or private institutions and other carefacilities, are educated with children who are not disabled. (Individualswith Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5])In 1994, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special EducationPrograms issued policy guidelines stating that school districts cannot usethe lack of adequate personnel or resources as an excuse for failing to makea free and appropriate education available, in the least restrictiveenvironment, to students with disabilities.Schools have taken much time to implement the law. Although many schools anddistricts have been educating students with disabilities in inclusivesettings for years, families often still have to fight to get their childreninto general education classrooms and inclusive environments.An analysis of U.S. Department of Education reports found that in the dozenyears between 1977 and 1990, placements of students with disabilitieschanged little. By 1990, for example, only 1.2 percent more students withdisabilities were in general education classes and resource roomenvironments: 69.2 percent in 1990 compared with 68 percent in 1977.Placements of students with disabilities in separate classes declined byonly 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 otherseparate facilities declined by only 1.3 percent: 5.4 percent of studentswith disabilities in 1990 compared with 6.7 percent of students withdisabilities in 1977 (Karagiannis, Stainback, & Stainback, 1996).More recently, the National Council on Disability (2000) released similarfindings. Investigators discovered that every state was out of compliancewith the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act andthat U.S. officials are not enforcing compliance. Even today, schoolssometimes place a student in a self-contained classroom as soon as they seethat the student is labeled as having a disability. Some students enterself-contained classrooms as soon as they begin kindergarten and never havean opportunity to experience regular education. When families of studentswith disabilities move to a different district, the new school sometimesmoves the student out of general education environments and into segregatedclassrooms.In some cases, districts may be moving slowly toward inclusive education,trying to make a smooth transition by gradually introducing teachers andstudents to change—but moving slowly cannot be an excuse for stalling when alearner with a disability comes to school requiring an inclusive placement.Clearly, more than 25 years after the law came into effect, many educatorsand administrators still do not understand the law or how to implement it.Three common misunderstandings still determine decisions about students withdisabilities in U.S. schools."Our School Doesn't Offer Inclusion"We often hear teachers and families talking about inclusion as if it were apolicy that schools can choose to adopt or reject. For example, we recentlymet a teacher who told us that her school "did inclusion, but it didn'twork," so the school "went back to the old way." Similarly, a parentexplained that she wanted her child to have an inclusive education, but herneighborhood school doesn't "have inclusion."Special education is not a program or a place, and inclusive schooling isnot a policy that schools can dismiss outright. Since 1975, federal courtshave clarified the intent of the law in favor of the inclusion of studentswith disabilities in general education (Osborne, 1996; Villa & Thousand,2000a, 2000b). A student with a disability should be educated in the schoolhe or she would attend if not identified as having a disability. The schoolmust devise an individualized education program that provides the learnerwith the supports and services that the student needs to receive aneducation in the least restrictive environment possible. The standard for denying a student access to inclusion is high. The lawclearly states that students with disabilities may be removed from theregular education environment only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education inregular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot beachieved satisfactorily. (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5])If schools can successfully educate a student with disabilities in generaleducation settings with peers who do not have disabilities, then thestudent's school must provide that experience. "She Is Too Disabled to Be Educated in a Regular ClassroomA special education teacher recently told us that she was interested ininclusive schooling and that she decided to "try" it with one of herstudents. , a young student with Down's syndrome, began 1st grade inSept-ember, but the school moved her back to a special education classroomby November. The teacher told us how difficult the decision had been andexplained why educators had changed 's placement: "The kids reallyliked her and she loved 1st grade, but she just wasn't catching on with thereading. She couldn't keep up with the other kids."Many families and teachers have the common misperception that students withdisabilities cannot receive an inclusive education because their skills arenot "close" enough to those of students without disabilities. Students withdisabilities, however, do not need to keep up with students withoutdisabilities to be educated in inclusive classrooms; they do not need toengage in the curriculum in the same way that students without disabilitiesdo; and they do not need to practice the same skills that students withoutdisabilities practice. Learners need not fulfill any prerequisites toparticipate in inclusive education.For instance, a middle-school social studies class is involved in a lessonon the U.S. Constitution. During the unit, the class writes its ownconstitution and bill of rights and reenacts the Constitutional Convention.Malcolm, a student with significant disabilities, participates in all theseactivities even though he cannot speak and is just beginning to read. Duringthe lesson, Malcolm works with a peer and a speech and language therapist tocontribute one line to the class bill of rights; the pair uses Malcolm'saugmentative communication device to write the sentence. Malcolm alsoparticipates in the dramatic interpretation of the ConstitutionalConvention. At the Convention, students acting as different Conventionparticipants drift around the classroom introducing themselves to others.Because he cannot speak, Malcolm—acting as Mason—shares a little bitabout himself by handing out his "business card" to other members of thedelegation. Other students are expected to submit three-page reports at theend of the unit, but Malcolm will submit a shorter report, a few sentences,which he will write using his communication device. His teacher will assessMalcolm's grade on the basis of his report and participation in the classactivities, his demonstration of new skills related to programming hiscommunication device, and his social interactions with others during theConstitutional Convention exercise.The Constitutional Convention example illustrates how students withdisabilities can participate in general education without engaging in thesame ways or having the same skills and abilities that others in the classmay have. In addition, this example highlights ways in which students withdisabilities can work on individual skills and goals within the context ofgeneral education lessons. Most important, his teachers designed and put inplace the supports and adaptations that Malcolm needed for success. Malcolmdid not have to display all the skills and abilities of other students toparticipate. Instead, Malcolm's teachers created a context in which Malcolmcould demonstrate competence.For Malcolm to be successful in his classroom, his teachers need to providehim with a range of "supplemental supports, aids, and services," one of thelaw's requirements (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1412 [a][5]). Supports, aids, and services might include a piece ofassistive technology, use of an education consultant, instruction from atherapist, support from a paraprofessional, peer tutors, different seatingor environmental supports, modified assignments, adapted materials (such aslarge-print books, graphic organizers, or color-coded assignment books),curriculum that is differentiated to meet the needs of the learner, time forteachers' collaborative planning, coteaching, training for school personnel,or any number of other strategies, methods, and approaches. Schools do notneed to provide every support available, but they must provide thoserequired by the student with disabilities.Families do not have to prove to the school that a student with disabilitiescan function in the general classroom. In Oberti v. Board of Education ofthe Borough of Clementon School District (1993), for example, a U.S. circuitcourt determined that the neighborhood school of Raphael Oberti, a studentwith Down's syndrome, had not supplied him with the supports and resourceshe needed to be successful in an inclusive classroom. The judge also ruledthat the school had failed to provide appropriate training for his educatorsand support staff. The court placed the burden of proof for compliance withthe law's inclusion requirements squarely on the school district and thestate instead of on the family. In other words, the school had to show whythis student could not be educated in general education with aids andservices, and his family did not have to prove why he could. The federaljudge who decided the case stated, "Inclusion is a right, not a specialprivilege for a select few.""We Offer Special Programs Instead of InclusionA few years ago, one of us went to a neighborhood school to vote. To get tothe ballot machines, voters had to walk down a long hallway to a classroommarked Autistic Center. Knowing that the district had been providinginclusive education to many students with disabilities, we were surprised tolearn that although students with mild disabilities were in generaleducation classrooms, others were still in "special programs." The teacherin the Autistic Center was responsible for educating all the district'sstudents who were diagnosed with autism—eight learners, ages 6 to 14.Across the United States, many school districts still operate programs fordiscrete groups of students. Separate programs and classrooms exist forstudents identified with certain labels—emotional disabilities, forexample—and for students with perceived levels of need, such as severe orprofound disabilities. In many cases, students enter these self-containedsettings without an opportunity to receive an education in a generalclassroom with the appropriate aids and services.In 1983, the Roncker v. Walter case challenged the assignment of students todisability-specific programs and schools. The ruling favored inclusive, notsegregated, placement and established a principle of portability. The judgein the case stated,It is not enough for a district to simply claim that a segregated program issuperior. In a case where the segregated facility is considered superior,the court should determine whether the services which make the placementsuperior could be feasibly provided in a nonsegregated setting (i.e.,regular class). If they can, the placement in the segregated school would beinappropriate under the act (IDEA). (Roncker v. Walter, 1983, at 1063)The Roncker court found that placement decisions must be determined on anindividual basis. School districts that automatically place students in apre-determined type of school solely on the basis of their disability orperceived level of functioning rather than on the basis of their educationneeds clearly violate federal laws. Benefits of Understanding the LawImplementation of the law is still in its infancy, and educators are stilllearning about how the law affects students in their classrooms. Reviewingthe intent and language of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Actwill help administrators shape districtwide or school-based policies andprocedures; evaluate the ways in which programs are labeled and implemented;and make more informed decisions about student assessment, placement, andservice delivery. Administrators should also consider the followingquestions: * Are all students in the least restrictive environment? * Are we providing students with disabilities with the necessarysupplemental supports, aids, and services? * Do teachers and administrators understand their responsibilitiesunder the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? * Do teachers and administrators talk about inclusive education as ifit 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 lawcan avoid lawsuits, enhance education experiences for students with andwithout disabilities, and move toward the development of school communitiesthat are egalitarian, just, and democratic for all.ReferencesEducation 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 overviewof inclusion. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide foreducators (pp. 17–28). Baltimore: s. National Council on Disability. (2000, January 25). Back to school on civilrights. (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 andeffective education. Baltimore: s.Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2000b). Setting the context: History of andrationales for inclusive schooling. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.),Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzletogether (pp. 7–37). Baltimore: s. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----a Kluth (pkluth@...) is an assistant professor in the Department ofTeaching and Leadership, Syracuse University, 150 Huntington Hall, Syracuse,NY 13244. A. Villa (ravillabayridge@ cs.com) is President, BayridgeConsortium, 767 Pebble Beach Dr., San Marcos, CA 92069. S.Thousand (jthousandcsusm (DOT) edu) 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 DevelopmentVolume 59 Number 4 December 2001/January 2002 http://www.ascd. org/

Kim Hammons

IPUT Informed Parents United Together

Tampa, Florida

www.iput.org

www.yahoogroups.com Keyword: "IPUT"