In keeping with the inclusive reform movement, several state education departments have adopted policies/position statements on inclusion. Despite the existence of these policies/ position statements, no studies have been found that have examined their content and characteristics. In light of the potential impact of state education agencies' policies/position statements on inclusive education practices in schools, this study was designed to examine their content and characteristics. Seventeen state education agencies were found to have adopted official policies/position statements on inclusion. Results of the investigation revealed that the state education agencies' policies/position statements on inclusion address a number of factors, including considerations concerning the meaning of the term inclusion, the philosophy of inclusion, laws and court decisions pertaining to inclusion, instructional issues, assessment issues, personnel issues, and placement issues. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Federation of Teachers. (1993). Draft AFT position on inclusion. Washington, DC : Author.
2.
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. ( 1991). TASH resolutions and policy statement. Seattle, WA: Author.
3.
Banerji, M., & Dailey, R.A. (1995). A study of the effects of an inclusion model on students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 511-522.
4.
Board of Education of Hendrik Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley, 102 S. CT. 3034 (1992).
5.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
6.
Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Davis, L., VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald, L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989). The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors. The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps , 14, 1-7.
7.
Campbell v. Tallageda County Board of Education , 518 F. Supp. 47, 55, N.D. Ala. (1981).
8.
Colorado Department of Education. (1994, April). Inclusion: A definition. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education, Special Education Services Unit .
9.
Connecticut State Department of Education. ( 1992). Position statement on the education of students with disabilities. Middletown, CT: Division of Educational Programs and Services, Bureau of Special Education and Pupil Services.
10.
Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. ( 1996). A framework for evaluating state and local policies for inclusion. Alexandria, VA: Author .
11.
Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. ( 1994). Executive committee approves position statement on inclusion within a continuum of service delivery options. Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders Newsletter, 8(1), 1.
12.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1993). Statement on inclusive schools and communities. Reston, VA: Author.
13.
Council for Learning Disabilities. (1993). Concerns about the "full inclusion" of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly , 16, 126.
14.
Couture Gerrard, L. (1994). Inclusive education: An issue of social justice. Equity and Excellence in Education, 27(1), 58-67.
15.
Florida Department of Education. (1995). Inclusion in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Student Services and Exceptional Education.
16.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
17.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395.
18.
Gottlieb, J. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the promise?American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 115-126.
19.
Hawaii Department of Education. (1996). BOE policy on inclusion. Honolulu, HI: Office of Instructional Services.
20.
Hollowood, T.M., Salisbury, C.L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M.M. (1994). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242-253.
21.
Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
Jefferson CityDepartment of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1990-1991). A discussion paper regarding inclusive education. Jefferson City, MI : Author.
23.
Katsiyannis, A. (1992). Policy issues in school attendance of children with AIDS: A national survey. The Journal of Special Education , 26, 219-226.
24.
Kennedy, C.H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities . Exceptional Children, 64, 31-47.
25.
Kentucky Department of Education. (1994). Best practice recommendations of the inclusive education task force . Lexington, KY: Author.
26.
Keogh, B.K. (1990). Narrowing the gap between policy and practice . Exceptional Children, 57, 186-190.
27.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
MacMillan, D.L., & Reschly, D.J. (1998). Overrepresentation of minority students: The case for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 15-24.
29.
McLaughlin, M.J., & Warren, S.H. (1992). Issues and options: In restructuring schools and special education programs. College Park, MD : University of Maryland, The Center for Policy Options in Special Education, Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth.
30.
Manheim, J.B., & Rich, R.C. (1995). Empirical political analysis (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman .
31.
Michigan Department of Education. (1992). Inclusive education: Position statement. Lansing, MI: Author.
32.
Mississippi Department of Education. (1995 ). Position statement on inclusive education. Jackson, MI: Author.
33.
Nachmias, D., & Nachmias, C. (1987). Research methods in the social sciences. New York: St. Martin's Press.
34.
National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National study for inclusion. New York: Author.
35.
Nevada Department of Education. (1995). Technical assistance document: Inclusion. Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Education, Special Education Branch.
36.
New Mexico State Department of Education. ( 1994). Administrative policy on inclusion. Santa Fe, NM: Author.
37.
New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Carey, 612 F. 2d 644 (2nd Cir. 1979).
38.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1994, April). Inclusive education. Raleigh, NC: Author.
39.
Ohio Department of Education. (1993). Urban and rural perspectives on developing schools that include all students: Changing attitudes is key to ensuring that every child belongs. Highlights in Special Education, 14(3), 1-8.
40.
O'Neil, J. (1994). Can inclusion work? A conversation with Jim Kauffman and Mara Sapon-Shevin. Educational Leadership, 52, 7-11.
41.
Padeliadu, S., & Zigmond, N. (1996). Perspectives of students with learning disabilities about special education placement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 15-23.
42.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) II, C.A. No. 71-42 (3rd Cir. June 14, 1983).
43.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1995 ). Placement of special education students: Inclusion policy. Basic education circulars. Harrisburg, PA: Bureau of Special Education.
44.
Pugh, W.C. (1990, April). An evaluator ponders: What motivates policy-makers?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 321 422).
45.
Roberts, C., Pratt, C., & Leach, D. (1991). Classroom and playground interaction of students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 212-224.
46.
Roncher v. Walter, 700 F. 2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).
47.
Sailor, W., Gerry, M., & Wilson, W.C. (1991). Policy implications of emergent full inclusion models for the education of students with severe disabilities. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds , & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. New York: Pergamon.
48.
Sale, P., & Carey, D.M. (1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6-19.
49.
Salend, S.J. (1994). Strategies for assessing attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. The School Counselor, 41, 338-342.
Salend, S.J., & Duhaney, L.M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education , 20(2), 114-126.
52.
Sanders, T. (1994). Facilitating LRE through alternative assessment and service delivery options. In S. Long-Wilson & P. Cashdollar (Eds.), Assistive technology facilitates delivery of services in the least restrictive environment. Highlights in SpecialEducation, 15(4), 1-8.
53.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.
54.
Shinn, M.R., Powell-Smith, K.A., Good, R.H., & Baker, S. (1997). The effects of reintegration into general education reading instruction for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 59-79.
55.
Smith, T.E.C., Polloway, E.A., Patton, J.R., & Dowdy, C.A. (1998). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
56.
Spector, A.K. (1985). Identification and analysis of human resource development policy in selected U.S. corporations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , George Washington University, Washington, DC.
57.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education. Baltimore: Brookes.
58.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Schools as inclusive communities. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education (pp. 29-43). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
59.
Statistical Analysis System. (1988). Users guide, release 6.03. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
60.
Stevens, R.J., & Slavin, R.E. (1991). When cooperative learning improves the achievement of students with mild disabilities: A response to Tateyama-Sniezek. Exceptional Children, 57, 276-80.
61.
Tennessee Department of Education. (1995). A framework for effecting change in education—A shared vision for the 21st century—Ensuring equal opportunity for all infants, toddlers, children and youth. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Education, Division of Special Education.
62.
Thousand, J.S., & Villa, R.A. (1990). Strategies for educating severe learners with severe disabilities within their local home schools and communities. Focus onExceptional Children, 23(3), 1-24.
63.
Vermont State Department of Education. (1995 ). Act 230 in Vermont. A project funded by the U.S. Department of Education as part of a State Evaluation Study known as the State Education Agency Federal Evaluation Studies Project, Grant #4217R2199401.
64.
Waldron, N.L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395-405.
65.
Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
66.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. ( 1993). Least restrictive environment and inclusion for children with disabilities. Information Update Bulletin, 93.12, 1-4.
67.
Zigmond, N., & Baker, J.M. (1996). Full inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Too much of a good thing?Theory Into Practice, 35, 26-34.
68.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J.N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan,76, 531-540.
