Public Law (P.L.)
94-142 (1975), now known as the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated a “free and appropriate
public education (FAPE)
for all handicapped children.” 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 ranging
from part to all of the school day. Mandates
within P.L. 94-142 were enormously important in providing students with
disabilities access to public education. Unfortunately, far too many placement
decisions still foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication that
a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had been
created. The law’s mechanism for identifying the LRE was often misinterpreted or
misused rather than being treated as a legal and valid option for 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.
Related to the least restrictive
environment (LRE) mandate within the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), Lipsky
and Gardner (1997) examined beliefs and practices in education dating back
to 1975. They found mainstreaming practices typically assumed
a student with a disability could cope with the academic and social demands of
a general education classroom. Specifically, they found mainstreaming practices
were traditionally considered only “applicable to those students who were
considered to be most like normal” (p. 77).
By contrast, when highly qualified
teachers and administrators willingly utilize available information and resources to promote
best practices, inclusion rates are positively impacted. Inclusive educational practices signify 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. Historically, too often mainstreaming
and inclusion were used interchangeably in the educational literature. However,
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).
Fortunately, 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
re-authorization of IDEA (1997, 2004) 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” helped 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.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
requires each state to develop and submit annual reports, known as the State Performance Plan/Annual
Performance Report (SPP/APR). The SPP/APR
allows evaluation of each State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes
of the IDEA and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Monitoring and State Improvement Planning
Division (MSIP) within the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is
responsible for ensuring States' compliance with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). MSIP uses data from the reports to ensure
that States and other public agencies continue to implement programs designed
to improve results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Based on collected and certified data, the 17 Indicators for Part B of the
SPP/APR and 11 Indicators for Part C of the
SPP/APR allows dis-aggregation of each State’s compliance with IDEA.
For instance, Part B Indicator 5 requires
states collect data on educational environments for children ages 6-21, which allows
the USDE
to monitor inclusion rates. This
allows the USDE to identify, evaluate, and monitor each State’s attempt to
address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the
least restrictive environment (LRE). States also collect data on variables that
may be influencing 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 Indicator 5 measures, can
therefore be further analyzed and help determine whether certain variables are
more present in those States deemed highly inclusive. Indicator
9 examines the percentage of students ages 3–21
served by IDEA and the percentage distribution of children and youth receiving
services for specific disabilities. This indicator also examines the rate at
which students ages 14–21 served by IDEA exited school.
Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and
Ethnic Groups examines the
educational progress and challenges students face in the United States by
race and ethnicity. Monitoring of the data may help the USDE
and SEAs utilize leadership principles that promote inclusive practices. Knowing how to interpret and utilize data
allows administrators and teacher leaders to differentiate between what Stephen
Covey (1992) metaphorically described as “…good managers (who) will take you through the forest, no matter
what. A leader will climb a tree and identify when, ‘This is the wrong forest.’”
Traditionalist theorists led by Andrews,
Carnine, Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs (2000) long contended
current teacher preparation standards were sufficient for promoting the
education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment.
By contrast, reformists or substantial re-conceptualists (Paul & Ward,
1996) advocated for explicit teacher competency standards to be requisite for
ensuring inclusive education for students with special needs in the least
restrictive environment. Because of the historical problems in ethically and
legally providing a student with a disability her or his LRE, it is prudent to
review and adjust, as needed, to ensure each state’s teacher competency
standards- as presented in its teacher preparation programs- will optimally promote inclusive educational
practices. Minimally, teacher
preparation programs should ensure that teacher candidates review user guides
to increase understand and competency related to the expectations of the 17
Indicators for Part B of the SPP/APR and the 11
Indicators for Part C of the SPP/APR.
To
Cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (February 28, 2020 Promoting inclusive educational practices in the United
States [Web log post] Retrieved
from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References:
Andrews,
J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2000). Bridging the
special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260,
267.
Gartner,
A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality
system for all students. Harvard Education Review, 57 (4), 367-395.
Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA),
P. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. sections 611–614.
Kauffman,
J. M. (1999). Commentary: Today’s special education and its messages for
tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education,
32 (4), 244-254.
Lipsky,
D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming
America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul
Brookes.
Paul,
P. V., & Ward, M. (1996). Inclusion paradigms in conflict. Theory Into
Practice,
35
(1),
4-11.
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.
