Current Issues
As of now, Federal law does require (through IDEA) that each public agency;
A. Determine each handicapped child’s educational placement at least annually. Placement is based on IEP and is to be as close as possible to the students home.
B. Various alternative placements included are available to the extent necessary to implement the IEP for each handicapped child.
C. Unless a handicapped child’s IEP requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school in which he/she would otherwise attend (if not handicapped).
D. In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potentially harmful effect on the child or the quality of services.
Recently the federal courts have been interpreting the rules to mean that children with severe disabilities are to be mainstreamed even if they cannot do the academic work as long as there is a potential social benefit.
In New Jersey there was a law suit filed seven years ago by a group of disability rights advocates that spurred New Jersey to "enter an agreement" on inclusion for students with disabilities. New Jersey was said to always be breaking the provisions of IDEA by sending disabled students to out-of district placements and not giving students the "in-class accommodation" that are needed for them to be put into a mainstream classroom.
There is some opposition to inclusion, Albert Shanker wrote an article about how full inclusion is not only unrealistic, but can in fact be “downright harmful” for all students alike; while supporters say that disabled children are “burdened with an additional handicap when they are segregated from their non-disabled peers”, which ultimately eliminates the chance to develop the social and academic skills necessary to function in mainstream life.
Administrators and politicians most likely back full inclusion because it allows them to cut back on the “expensive special education services”, which can become quite a financial burden because Congress still never provided the funds for the initial EHA legislation in 1975! If districts are backing full inclusion strictly for the purpose of saving money, the funding won’t be provided for the special care, and the proper care will not exist. It doesn't matter what roof the student is under, if the funds aren't provided, the special care does not exist, period.
A. Determine each handicapped child’s educational placement at least annually. Placement is based on IEP and is to be as close as possible to the students home.
B. Various alternative placements included are available to the extent necessary to implement the IEP for each handicapped child.
C. Unless a handicapped child’s IEP requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school in which he/she would otherwise attend (if not handicapped).
D. In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potentially harmful effect on the child or the quality of services.
Recently the federal courts have been interpreting the rules to mean that children with severe disabilities are to be mainstreamed even if they cannot do the academic work as long as there is a potential social benefit.
In New Jersey there was a law suit filed seven years ago by a group of disability rights advocates that spurred New Jersey to "enter an agreement" on inclusion for students with disabilities. New Jersey was said to always be breaking the provisions of IDEA by sending disabled students to out-of district placements and not giving students the "in-class accommodation" that are needed for them to be put into a mainstream classroom.
There is some opposition to inclusion, Albert Shanker wrote an article about how full inclusion is not only unrealistic, but can in fact be “downright harmful” for all students alike; while supporters say that disabled children are “burdened with an additional handicap when they are segregated from their non-disabled peers”, which ultimately eliminates the chance to develop the social and academic skills necessary to function in mainstream life.
Administrators and politicians most likely back full inclusion because it allows them to cut back on the “expensive special education services”, which can become quite a financial burden because Congress still never provided the funds for the initial EHA legislation in 1975! If districts are backing full inclusion strictly for the purpose of saving money, the funding won’t be provided for the special care, and the proper care will not exist. It doesn't matter what roof the student is under, if the funds aren't provided, the special care does not exist, period.
It is not the “normal” education that makes inclusion desirable, it is the real life experience, the interaction with “normal” students, the connections that are made, that make inclusion desirable.