Managing Special Education Programs in Schools
Student: Dr. Freda Doster
This course was designed to meet the following objectives:
1. To demonstrate knowledge regarding the educational and legal rationale supporting placement in the least restrictive environment.
2. To identify the strategies for including students with disabilities and associated accomodations to the needs of these students in the regular education classroom.
3. To demonstrate knowledge of parental concerns regarding students with disabilities being served in regular education classes and demonstrate potential responses to these concerns.
4. To identify and examine strategies for effectively implementing collaborative teaching between regular and special education teachers.
5. To explore the ways in which a school leader can improve his/her school's readiness to implement and/or continue to implement instructional programs which maximize the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education classes with approprite supports or accomodations.
The following is an exerpt taken from a response written for partial fulfillment of the requirments of this class. The activity required that the participant read an article found at http://www.weac.org/Resource/june96/speced.htm which was updated in November of 2001 by the Wisconsin Education Association Council.
The article provided information in an overview format on the concept of inclusion and offered suggestions on meeting the needs of all students. The author begins by defining the three models which most accurately depict the delivery of special education services. These models include:
Mainstreaming: this model refers to the practice of selectively placing special education students in one or more regular education classes. However, this model is dependent upon the students� ability to �earn� placement in the regular education classroom by demonstrating that they have the necessary skills for success. If the student cannot demonstrate the necessary skills, special education services are provided as a resource.
Inclusion: this model is based upon the desire to educate all children, to the extent possible, in their home school or regular education classroom. The premise behind this model is that any additional services for which the child qualifies will be brought to him/her. In addition, proponents believe that the child will benefit from the opportunities experienced in the regular education class.
Full Inclusion: this model is designed so that all students, regardless of disability, in the regular education classroom/program full time. All additional services for which the child qualifies are provided to the child within the regular education setting.
Federal Laws Relating to Inclusive Practices in Regular Education and the Implications for k-12 schools
There are currently two federal laws which govern the education of students with disabilities. Interestingly enough, these laws do not require that inclusive services be provided. However, both laws require that every effort possible be made to include inclusive placement within individual education plans.
he Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) is the first of the two federal laws which address the education of students with disabilities. This law was amended in 1997 but does not explicitly state that inclusion be provided. However, it does require that students with disabilities be educated �to the maximum extent appropriate� in the �least restrictive environment�.
The underlying intent of that law is that �least restrictive environment� describes the regular education classroom; thereby implying that inclusion services should be implemented whenever possible. Further, IDEA requires that the placement committee begin with the regular education classroom as the starting point when determining appropriate placement and should the regular education classroom be deemed inappropriate, an explanation must be included.
The intent within this federal law implies that k-12 schools must address the needs of all students, regardless of disability and that all students must receive services within peer groups unless those peer group placements are deemed inappropriate.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is the second of the two federal laws which legislate the education of qualified handicapped students. However, just as IDEA does not explicitly mandate inclusion, neither does Section 504. Section 504 does require that students with handicapping conditions must be educated with non-handicapped students to the maximum extent appropriate. Again, the intent is that the regular education classroom be considered the primary placement, thus resulting in inclusive practices.
The implication for k-12 schools is that every effort must be made to meet the needs of all students, despite handicapping conditions or exceptionalities. Further, both federal laws discussed here have been designed with the premise that the regular education setting is not only the least restrictive, but also the most appropriate unless otherwise proven by circumstances.
Four Implications of Inclusive Practices Across Case Law
The authors cited four case laws which occurred in four different judicial districts. (Greer vs Rome City School District, 11th Circuit Court, 1992; Sacramento City Unified School District vs Holland, 9th Circuit Court, 1994; Oberti vs Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 3rd Circuit Court, 1993; and Poolaw vs Parker Unified School District, Federal District Court Arizona, 1994). Although each of these cases took place in a different judicial district, there are similarities across case law.
In the first case cited, the courts ruled that while a school district cannot refuse services based on cost, they are not required to provide a child with his/her own full-time teacher. Further, the courts stated that all options must be considered before removing a student from the regular education classroom. The second case cited resulted in the court finding that �non-academic� benefits must be considered when addressing appropriate placement. The court established a four-part balancing test which would help in determining appropriate placement. Appropriate placement must be considered within the realm of 1) educational benefits, 2) non-academic benefits, 3) the effect of the child�s placement on the teacher and other students, and 4) associated costs.
In regards to the third case, the courts mandated that three factors must be considered when contemplating appropriate placement. The factors included: 1) are reasonable efforts being made to provide accommodations, 2) the benefits of regular education and special education must be compared, and 3) what effect does the placement have on other students.
Finally, the fourth case resulted in a ruling which stated that the district had adequately explored the effectiveness of regular education with supplemental services and this placement was deemed appropriate.
Although the cases reviewed took place in different judicial districts, a review of these case laws found several commonalities.
1. The regular education classroom is considered the primary purview of services.
2. All options must be considered prior to removing a student from the regular education classroom.
3. Appropriate accommodations take into account not just the student with disabilities but also the other students in the classroom.
4. Appropriate accommodations must consider not only the academic benefits but also the non-academic benefits.
Interestingly enough, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was amended just a few years after these cases were documented.
Reference: Special Education Inclusion found at http://www.weac.org/Resource/june96/speced.htm.