Public
Law (PL) 94-142 (1975) mandated a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) for students
identified with disabling educational conditions. Within this law was the
concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which
meant each student is to be individually evaluated and placed on a continuum of options including general education
classes, separate classes, separate schools, home, or a hospital setting for
part or all day. PL
94-142 certainly was enormously successful in providing students with
disabilities access to a public education. However, far too many placement
decisions initially foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication
that a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had
been created. PL 94-142’s mechanism of LRE was often being interpreted as a
legal and valid option of not placing a student with a disability in a general
education classroom. Lipsky and Gartner
(1997) and Linton (1998) found reformists, disability rights advocates,
activists, and others criticized the LRE mandate as a loophole, which allowed
institutions of education to maintain the non-integration of people with
disabilities into schools and therefore society at large.
Reviewing
mainstreaming beliefs and practices in education dating back to 1975, Lipsky
and Gardner (1997) found mainstreaming
is based on an assumption that a student with a disability can cope with
the academic and social demands of a general education classroom. Specifically,
they found mainstreaming was traditionally only “applicable to those students
who were considered to be most like normal” (p. 77). By contrast, inclusion
signifies that a student with a disability can benefit both academically and
socially from the general education classroom, even if goals for students with disabilities
were different from typically developing students. Too often mainstreaming and
inclusion are used interchangeably in educational literature (Fuchs, 2010). They
differ significantly in terms of both definition and philosophy. In a critical commentary
on the field of special education, Kauffman (1998) stated, “Inclusion has
become virtually meaningless, a catch-word used to give a patina of legitimacy
to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” (p. 246). The period
following 1997 marked a clear point of change in the field of special
education. Requirements increasing accountability using standards-based
assessment for all students as stated in the reauthorization of IDEA (1997) stressed
increased access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of general
educators as members of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team.
These explicit mandates promoted the opportunity for increased inclusion to become
firmly established as the foundation for placement decisions. Although
requirements for placement within the least restrictive environment had been in
special education legislation since 1975, the explicit mandates of IDEA 1997
increased academic expectations, resulting in a shift in policies and practices
within education. An effective “inclusion movement” helps ensure educators
will, to the greatest extent appropriate, provide access to the general
education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students
with disabilities. A greater
understanding as to what elements denote effective progress for this inclusion
movement may result from a thorough analysis of data available through the U.S.
Department of Education (USDE) and state educational agencies (SEA).
Through
IDEA (2004) State Performance Plans (SPP) mandates,
the USDE required identification, evaluation, and monitoring of each state’s
attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special
needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). States must also collect data
on variables that may influence its districts’ practices related to
the inclusion of students with special needs in the LRE. Identification of effective
progress toward satisfaction of LRE mandates, as identified by SPP Indicator 5
measures, can therefore be further analyzed by determining whether certain
variables are more present in those states deemed highly successful. Understanding
how to review SPP Indicator 5 data will allow stakeholders to utilize leadership
principles described by Stephen Covey (1992) whereby “…good managers will take you through the
forest, no matter what. A leader
will climb a tree and may say, ‘This is the wrong forest’.”
As the result of the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEA,
2004), each state was required to identify baseline data related to its
local educational agencies’ special education programs performance on
education-related performance indicators. In addition to other important performance
indicators, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S.
Department of Education (USDE) evaluated and monitored each state’s attempts to
address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the
least restrictive environment (LRE). This data was identified and monitored as SPP
Indicator 5. Specifically, this performance indicator addresses the educational
placement of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, based on the percent of the
day spent in one of three diverse types of educational environments:
A. Removed from regular class less than
21% of the day;
B. Removed from regular class greater than
60% of the day; or
C. Served in public or private separate
schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Most states initially collected and identified
baseline data by analyzing LRE statistics based on the 2004-2005 fiscal year.
Thereafter each state planned to collect and analyze yearly LRE data for SPP Indicator
5. A sampling of ten initial State
Performance Plans (SPP) found there was diversity in the baseline percentages identified
for each state’s Indicator 5 results. The five-year progress projections were
uniformly modest. For instance, the sampling revealed each of the ten states’ with
approved SPP for Indicator 5, part A, established improvement as one-half of
one percent (.005) per year. Therefore, it would be ten-years before a 5%
increase in inclusion rates would be realized.
If
USDE evaluation and monitoring of state’s
Performance Plans for Indicator 5, part A and each state’s Annual Performance
Report (APR)
remains deficient for pushing increased inclusion rates, then professional
development may be the better hope for reform of LRE initiatives. Research suggested professional development
is most effective when teachers engage in instructional inquiry within the
context of collaborative professional communities that focus upon instructional
improvement and student achievement. Research suggested great value in professional
development that ensures teachers support of each other in understanding
policies and research that guide effective practices related to inclusive
programs (Baker, Gersten, Dimino, & Griffiths, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron,
2004; Vaughn & Coleman, 2004; and Waldron & McLeskey, 2009). Crucially, research indicated the positive
impact of creating and implementing embedded professional development intended
to improve instructional practices that lead to improved outcomes for
individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families (Beverly,
Santos, & Kyger, 2006; Bryant, Linan-Thompson, & Ugel, 2001; Englert
& Rozendal, 2004; Monteith, 2000; Powers, Rayner, & Gunter, 2001; Voltz,
2001; and Voltz, Brazil, & Scott, 2003).
Traditional theorists contend current teacher
preparation standards are sufficient for promoting the education for students
with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Andrews, Carnine,
Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000). By contrast, Reformists or Substantial
Re-conceptualists, contend explicit standards are requisite for ensuring
inclusive education for students with special needs in the least restrictive
environment (Paul & Paul, 1996; Andrews, et. al., 2000). To improve rates
of inclusive educational practices, states would benefit from requiring explicit
teacher preparation standards related to the effective implementation of LRE
mandates rather than merely comprehending the meaning of LRE. However, understanding the adverse impact of assessment
systems upon diverse students and how to effectively monitor and adjust
instruction based on assessments FOR learning, may be more powerful for
encouraging change.
Systemic approaches that utilize diverse
evaluations allow all stakeholders a better opportunity to make decisions based
on holistic data. Diverse data analysis
offers the opportunity to more reliably monitor and adjust plans for student,
classroom, and school-wide improvement.
This systemic approach provides an opportunity that is not reliably
possible through analysis of a solitary, end-of-year test. The latter “simply cannot provide sufficient
formative information to guide teaching and learning throughout the year (Herman,
2010, p 3).
An embrace of the learning for all mission
will be more valuable for promoting LRE initiatives. A
coherent, data-based accountability system is identified as a correlate of Effective Schools Research
(Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). More important than understanding the continuum or cascade of
services (Deno, 1962; Reynolds, 1970) available to diverse students is the
ability to navigate or advocate for an assessment system promoting a coherent network
that provides the opportunity to develop, implement, and utilize data-based accountability.
The lack of collaborative and deliberate consideration and respect for the
student’s present
level of academic achievement and functional performance results in
problematic decisions that adversely effects the integrity of the placement
process.
To
cite:
Anderson, C.J. (October
31, 2019) Utilization of assessments options can increase inclusion better
References:
Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J.,
Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, L.,
et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial
and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267.
Connor,
D. (2007). A (Brief) History of Inclusion in the USA. Supporting Inclusive
Classrooms:
A Resource. NYCTFQIS
Darling-Hammond, L.
(2005). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons,
challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond
(Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession
(pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers College Press.
Eichenger, J., & Downing, J.E.
(2002). Instruction in the general education environment.
In
J. Downing (Ed.) Including students with
severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (2nd
ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Elbaum, B.; Vaughn, S.; Hughes, M.T.; Moody,
S.W.; Schumm, J.S. (2000). How
reading outcomes
of students with disabilities are related to instructional grouping
formats: A meta-analytic review. In R. Gersten, E.P. Schiller, S. Vaughn
(eds.),
Contemporary
special education research: Synthesis of
the knowledge base on
critical
instructional issues. (pp.
105-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fuchs,
D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization
of
special education reform. In J. M. Kauffman and D. P.
Hallahan (Eds.), The inclusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique
of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 213242). Austin, TX: ProEd.
Lipsky,
D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming
America’s
classrooms. Baltimore: Paul
Brookes.
Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical
perspective: The delivery of special education to
mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial
and Special Education,10 (6),7-11.
Reynolds, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1977). Teaching
exceptional children in all America’s
schools. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Sindelar, P.T., Brownell, M.T., Correa, V., McLeskey, J., Bishop,
A., Smith, D.,
Tyler,
N., & Waldron, N., (2001). The Center
on Personnel Studies in Special Education: Assessing the Quality of Preservice
Teacher Preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, St. Petersburg, FL.
