Inclusive Education Laws

Inclusive education for students with disabilities is designed to ensure that all children receive a proper education in an environment that is not restricted. The major laws governing inclusive education are the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Since the original acts were passed, subsequent court cases have revolved around the exact definition of "least restrictive environment." Research has shown the inclusive education can improve academic achievement among disabled students, as well as foster more positive social interaction among disabled and non-disabled students. However, inclusion can deprive disabled students of specialized instruction, and, in some cases, disrupt the learning of non-disabled students.

Keywords Continuum of Alternative Placements; Education for All Handicapped Children Act; Inclusion; Individualized Education Plan (IEP); Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Least Restrictive Environment; Mainstreaming; Related Services; Supplementary Aids and Services; Students with Disabilities

Education & the Law > Inclusive Education Laws

Overview

In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The law came about, in part, after a report found that over 60% of the country's disabled students were not receiving an appropriate education, and some research indicated that millions of children constantly being excluded from school, or were not getting a proper education that could help, not hinder, their disabilities (Yell, 1998; Irmsher, 1995, as cited in McCarty, 2006). The law's intent was to make sure that students with disabilities would be taught with other children who did not have disabilities (Kluth, Villa & Thousand, 2002, as cited in McCarty, 2006). In 1991, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Irmsher, 1995, as cited in McCarty, 2006). Along with the renaming of the act, certain learning disabilities were reclassified, and autism and traumatic brain injury were added (McCarty, 2006).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that students with disabilities be taught in the "least restrictive environment" possible with students who are not disabled (Lipton, 1994, as cited in McCarty, 2006) and that schools must take steps to ensure the comfort of children with disabilities in the regular classroom. These steps could include giving supplementary aids and changing the curriculum of the general education class (Yell, 1998). The updated Act also mandates that "various alternative placement options are required also by the regulations of the Act in order to assure that each student with disabilities receives an education which is appropriate for his/her individual need" (Wigle, Wilcox & Manges, 1994, as cited in McCarty, 2006). Another part of the act says that "special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular education environment occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (Yell, 1998; McCarty, 2006).

The Least Restrictive Environment Mandate

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires schools to educate students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment possible, which means they should be educated as closely as possible with students who do not have disabilities. Thus, students with disabilities have a right to be educated in a regular education classroom with their peers. The second part states that students do not have to be educated in a regular classroom with their non-disabled peers if they cannot be satisfactorily educated. This means that if students with disabilities cannot receive an education in a regular classroom that meets their particular needs, they may move to a different educational setting where they can receive an appropriate education. With respect to least restrictive environments, a general education classroom is considered to be the least restrictive and any educational setting that affords students with disabilities little contact with their non-disabled classmates is considered to be more restrictive (Yell, 1998). The less an educational setting for students with disabilities mirrors a general education environment, the more restrictive the environment is considered to be (Gorn, 1997, as cited in Yell, 1998).

A least restrictive environment is considered to be any setting that is limited in its educational restraining for the student, which allows them to grow, learn, and succeed in an educational setting. It is up to each student's individualized education program (IEP) team or a group consisting of parents, educators, and others who are involved with students with disabilities to determine what constitutes a least restrictive environment for each disabled student (McCarty, 2006).

Interpreting the Law

With the laws that helped establish inclusive education came court cases that specify what should be the proper implementation of inclusive education, but there is still no clear-cut language in court decisions that states how this should be done. This lack of clarity results in schools, school districts, and states interpreting the language of the law, which results in interpretations that match their particular view on inclusive education and the degree to which their students with disabilities are immersed in a regular general education classroom (McCarty, 2006). Issues and interpretations are further complicated by the fact that people both inside and outside of the education field often talk about “least restrictive environment,” “inclusion,” and “mainstreaming” as if they mean the same things when, in actuality, they cannot be used interchangeably (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002, as cited in McCarty, 2006).

The concept of educating students in a least restrictive environment developed in the 1970s from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, and has since become a requirement in all schools (Bateman & Bateman, 2002). Inclusion refers to having students with disabilities in a general education classroom with non-disabled students, and “implies that students with disabilities will be taught outside a regular education classroom only when all available instructional methods have been utilized and failed to meet their needs” (Bateman & Bateman, 2002, as cited in McCarty, 2006, p. 6). Full inclusion refers to placing children with disabilities in a regular education classroom every day (McCarty, 2006). Students with disabilities in an inclusive setting still receive direct support from special educators (Hines, 2001). Inclusion is different from mainstreaming because “students are part of only the general education classroom and do not belong to any other specialized education setting based on their disability” (Halvorsen & Neary, 2001, as cited in Hines, 2001, p. 2).

Mainstreaming is used to refer to when students with disabilities are “in a special education classroom setting for most of the day and then go into a general education classroom for parts of the school day” when the general education class is working on activities where it is believed that the disabled student will excel (McCarty, 2006, p. 6).

The Continuum of Alternative Placements

To make sure that schools provide a range of educational opportunities for students with disabilities with respect to differing levels of least restrictive environment, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires school districts to have a continuum of alternative placements. Continuum of placements can include being taught in regular classes and schools as well as special classes and schools. Education in homes, hospitals or institutions is also included (Bateman & Bateman, 2002). The purpose of having a continuum of alternative placements is to enable the schools to select from a number of options when determining a student's placement so that they are not either completely included or completely excluded from participating with their non-disabled peers. Having a choice helps ensure that students with disabilities will not be educated in environments that are more restrictive than necessary. If a student's individualized education program (IEP) planning team believes that placing the student in the regular classroom is not appropriate for the student, then the student can be moved along the continuum of placements that exist until the team matches the student with an educational setting that provides the least amount of separation from the non-disabled students. While inclusion is not specifically required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, it does state that the primary consideration in determining the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities must be done in conjunction with each student's individual needs (Yell, 1998).

Further Insights

Court Cases Affecting Inclusion

Several lawsuits have resulted in U.S. Court of Appeals decisions that affect the way schools and school districts interpret the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The crux of inclusive education law deals with providing a least restrictive environment. The challenge is what constitutes a least restrictive setting for each student and how that decision is made. The laws are vague enough that schools, school districts, and parents may interpret them differently, which is when lawsuits may occur.

Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education

In 1989, the first case, Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The standard set by this court dictates that when a court reviews a case about least restrictive environment it must determine if the school has complied with the mainstreaming requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This means that courts should determine whether education in a regular classroom using supplementary aids and services will provide an appropriate education for the student. If it has been decided that it cannot, and the school plans to take the student out of the regular classroom, then is the student being mainstreamed to an appropriate degree? According to the Court, there are three factors to consider in determining whether education in a regular classroom is appropriate for a student and is in compliance with the least restrictive environment component of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Yell, 1998):

• Whether the student will benefit educationally by being placed in a general classroom environment. In this case, the benefit may be defined as either academic benefit or nonacademic (social) benefit.

• The student's overall educational experience in being placed in a mainstream environment. This requires schools to look at the benefits that can be derived from a mainstream education versus those that can be derived from a special education setting. Although some interpret this to mean that schools must attempt to mainstream the student (Julnes, 1994, as cited in Yell, 1998), the Court of Appeals stated that mainstreaming may not be good for the student because regular classroom instruction may not meet the student's needs even if supplementary aids and services are provided.

• The effect the student has on the education of the other students in the classroom, which may be detrimental to the other students in the classroom if the student demonstrates disruptive behavior or if the student places undue burden on the instructors (Yell, 1998).

If it is determined that the school does not really try to keep the student in the general classroom, then the school has not satisfied the first part of the test. If the student's individualized education program (IEP) team decides whether or not the student can do well in a general education classroom, then the court tries to determine if the student is mainstreamed to the highest degree possible, and the school must afford the student as much exposure to non-disabled students as possible. In Daniel R.R., the Court decided that the student should be mainstreamed when appropriate, during lunch, recess, and in nonacademic classes. According to this U.S. Court of Appeals, schools that meet both components of the Daniel R.R. test have complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Yell, 1998).

Sacramento City School District v. Rachel H.

In 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Sacramento City School District v. Rachel H. came up with another standard for reviewing least restrictive environment cases. According to this decision, when reviewing least restrictive environment cases, courts must look at:

• The educational benefits of a general education classroom with supplementary aids and services as compared with the educational benefits of a special classroom,

• The nonacademic benefits of having interaction with non-disabled students,

• The effect the student's presence in the general education classroom has on the instructor's ability to teach and other students' ability to learn, and

• The cost of mainstreaming the student (Yell, 1998).

Hartmann v. Loudoun County

A few years later in 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit added a different interpretation in its ruling on Hartmann v. Loudoun County. It stated that the least restrictive environment requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was a preference for inclusion and not a federal mandate. With that in mind, it developed a slightly different test for courts to use when determining whether or not a school district has met its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The court gave three scenarios in which a school district does not have to place a student with disabilities in a general education classroom with non-disabled students. They determined that:

• Mainstreaming is not absolutely necessary if a student with disabilities is not expected to receive any benefits from being in a general education classroom with non-disabled students,

• Mainstreaming is not required if any marginal benefit that may be attained by being in a general education classroom would be drastically outweighed by enhancements that may be attained in a separate instructional setting, and

• Mainstreaming is not required if the student poses a threat to the peace of the general education classroom (Yell, 1998).

Viewpoints

Advantages of Inclusion

There can be benefits for both non-disabled students and students with disabilities when the latter are included in the general education classroom. Some research has shown that students with disabilities who are included in a regular classroom setting seem to do better both academically and socially than those students with disabilities who are not in an inclusive setting (Irmsher, n.d., as cited in McCarty, 2006). Students with disabilities who are integrated into the regular classroom are able to meet their non-disabled peers and develop friendships with them. These relationships can also provide students with disabilities role models for correct behavior. Non-disabled students can also benefit by having students with disabilities in the classroom with them because their presence can give non-disabled students a better understanding of people with disabilities (McCarty, 2006). Inclusion may also lead to non-disabled students acquiring greater acceptance of students with disabilities and to come to understand that all disabilities are not necessarily obvious. Inclusion may also help promote better understanding of the similarities between students with disabilities and non-disabled students (Kochhar, West & Taymans, 2000, as cited in Hines, 2001).

Inclusion can help facilitate better social behavior for students with disabilities through generally higher expectations in a general education classroom. Inclusion can also promote higher achievement or achievement at least as high as what comes from a learning environment that is less inclusive. It can also offer students with disabilities a larger support system by promoting social interaction with non-disabled students. In addition, inclusion can improve the ability of students and instructors to adapt to different instructional and student learning styles (Kochhar, West & Taymans, 2000, as cited in Hines, 2001).

There can also be academic benefits for non-disabled students. Having students with disabilities in the regular classroom may mean that there is additional professional staff in the classroom, which may allow for smaller group and individualized instruction for everyone; and they may also assist in developing academic adaptations for other students who have not been classified as having disabilities (Hines, 2001, as cited in McCarty, 2006). Students without disabilities in an inclusive setting also learn that students with disabilities are a portion of the whole community and can still contribute in many ways to society (McCarty, 2006).

Disadvantages of Inclusion

There can also be disadvantages to inclusive programming. For some students, full inclusion is not the best placement, since most general education classrooms do not provide individualized instruction and not all services can be provided to students in a regular classroom setting (Bateman & Bateman, 2002). Some advocates feel that students with disabilities should be completely included in a regular classroom even if they are disruptive to the other students; however, this is probably the largest disadvantage of inclusive education. If a student is so disruptive that the instructor cannot teach and the other students are distracted, then such inclusion is not good for all the students because they are not learning as much as they should.

Another possible disadvantage to students with disabilities relates to the special services they may not receive if they are integrated into a regular classroom, such as occupational therapy, speech therapy, and adapted physical education. Students with disabilities who have been fully integrated may also be taught by instructors who do not have extensive training in special education, like those working in more non-inclusive settings will have. Additionally, if students are fully integrated, they could lose one-on-one, more specialized instruction that they need to understand some subject areas, which means they will undoubtedly struggle more in their weaker subjects than they would if they were in a less inclusive setting (McCarty, 2006).

These divergent opinions are one reason why having laws regarding inclusive education are necessary (McCarty, 2006). The disagreements parents, schools, and school districts have over the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act tend to be over the “matter of full inclusion of the student in a general education classroom, and most court cases have ruled in favor of students over school districts” (Kluth, et al., 2002, as cited in McCarty, 2006, p. 5).

As seen in the court cases and other information presented in this paper, laws that govern inclusion for students with disabilities are subject to interpretation because there really are no clear-cut guidelines. For example, the school and instructor may find a student's behavior very disruptive and detrimental to the class, and the student's parents may not; and how one school interprets disruptive behavior may be entirely different from how a neighboring school does. Providing services for students with disabilities will continue to be debated, since the laws can be interpreted in different ways. As new court decisions are handed down and laws are updated, how inclusion is determined may change. For now, schools and districts should be consistent in their interpretation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and act in good faith to try to avoid having to defend against legal action while still affording students with disabilities the best education they possibly can.

Terms & Concepts

Continuum of Alternative Placements: The continuum of alternative placements is mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and means that schools must provide a range of educational opportunities for students with disabilities with respect to differing levels of least restrictive environment.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was enacted in 1975 and required every public school that received federal money should give equal education and access to that education to students with disabilities. The schools must assess the children, develop teaching plans, and include parental influences to create a learning atmosphere that closely resembles that of non-disabled children.

Individualized Education Program (IEP): An individualized education program is a specific description of the goals, evaluation techniques, behavioral management plan, and behavior of each student who needs special education services.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, formerly the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, requires all states receiving federal funds for education to provide students with disabilities the option to receive a proper public education that can meet the child’s individual needs and equip them with the skills needed for future job opportunities and independent living.

Least Restrictive Environment: Least restrictive environment is a legal principle requiring students with disabilities to be educated as closely as possible with students without disabilities.

Mainstreaming: The practice of teaching students with disabilities in regular classrooms with non-disabled students when the general education class is working on activities where it is believed that the disabled student will excel.

Supplementary Aids and Services: Supplementary aids and services are accommodations that students with disabilities may receive outside of a regular general classroom, such as occupational therapy, speech therapy, one-on-one instruction, and recording equipment.

Bibliography

Bateman, D. & Bateman, C. (2002). What does a principal need to know about inclusion? Retrieved September 29, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/d4/91.pdf

Hines, R. (2001). Inclusion in middle schools. Retrieved September 29, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/19/75/f8.pdf

Israel, M., Maynard, K., & Williamson, P. (2013). Promoting Literacy- Embedded, Authentic STEM Instruction for Students With Disabilities and Other Struggling Learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 18-25. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85691770&site=ehost-live

McCarty, K. (2006). Full inclusion: The benefits and disadvantages of inclusive schooling. Retrieved September 29, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/28/07/83.pdf

Minarik, D.W., & Lintner, T. (2011). The push for inclusive classrooms and the impact on social studies design and delivery. Social Studies Review, 50, 52-55. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65264547&site=ehost-live

Yell, M. (1998). The legal basis of inclusion. Educational Leadership, 56 , 70. Retrieved September 29, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1228529&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Bartlett, L., Etscheidt, S. & Weisenstein, G. (2006). Special Education Law and Practice in Public Schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mandlawitz, M. (2006). What Every Teacher Should Know About IDEA 2004 Laws & Regulations. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Osborne, A. & Russo, C. (2006). Special Education and the Law: A Guide for Practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wright, P. & Wright, P. (2005). IDEA 2004. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press, Inc.