Students with significant disabilities continue to be among the most segregated in schools. In this article, we argue that the principles of least restrictive environment and involvement and progress in the general curriculum have been interpreted in ways that perpetuate segregation, rather than increasing students’ access to meaningful curriculum in inclusive educational contexts. We examine this issue from three broad perspectives: federal policy related to least restrictive environment, interpretations of policies related to involvement and progress in the general curriculum, and the implementation of policies related to assessment of grade-level standards. We discuss implications of each of these issues for providing and increasing involvement and progress in general education contexts and content.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (2002). Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.
2.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B.GonzalezT. (2011). Beyond the allure of inclusive education in the United States: Facing power, pursuing a cultural-historical agenda. Revista Teias, 12(24). Retrieved from http://www.periodicos.proped.pro.br/index.php?
3.
AyresK. M.DouglasK. H.LowreyK. A.SieversC. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11-21.
4.
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
5.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisA.WakemanS. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407-432.
6.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408.
7.
BrownL. (in press). Educational standards for students with significant intellectual disabilities. TASH Connections.
8.
BurrelloL. C.SailorW.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (Eds.). (2013). Unifying educational systems: Leadership and policy perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
Causton-TheoharisJ.TheoharisG.OrsatiF.CosierM. (2011). Does self-contained special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 61-78.
10.
ChardD.HarnB. A.SugaiG.HornerR.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Core features of multi-tiered systems of reading and behavioral support. In GreenwoodC. R.KratochwillT. R.ClementsM. (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 31-58). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
DymondS. K.RenzagliaC. L.GilsonC. L.SlagorM. T. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 1-15.
12.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C., §1400 et seq. (1976).
13.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002).
14.
FisherM.MeyerL. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 27(3), 165-174.
15.
FryxellD.KennedyC. H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students’ social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 20, 259-269.
16.
GallegosE. M. (2010). Least restrictive environment. Albuquerque, NM: Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Gallegos and Green, P.C. Retrieved from http://www.bie.edu/
17.
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 389 F. Supp. 2d 628, 644 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
18.
HudsonM.BrowderD. M.WoodL. A. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 17-29.
19.
HuntP.GoetzL. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.
20.
HuntP.GoetzL.AndersonJ. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 11, 125-130.
21.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (1997).
22.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2005).
23.
JacksonL. B.RyndakD. L.WehmeyerM. L. (2008-2009). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33-34, 175-195.
24.
KliewerC.BiklenD.Kasa-HendricksonC. (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 163-192.
25.
KlingnerJ.HarryB. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. The Teachers College Record, 108, 2247-2281.
26.
KozleskiE. B.SmithA. (2009). The complexities of systems change in creating equity for students with disabilities in urban schools. Urban Education, 44, 427-451.
27.
LeRoyB.KulikN. (2004). The demographics of inclusion: Final report materials for U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Program Grant. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
28.
McDonnellJ.HuntP.JacksonL.RyndakD. (in press). Educational standards for students with significant intellectual disabilities: A response to Lou Brown. TASH Connections.
29.
NisbetJ. (2004). Commentary: Caught in the continuum. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 29, 231-236.
Oberti v. Board of Education of Borough of Clementon School District, 999 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).
32.
ObiakorF. E.HarrisM.MutuaK.RotatoriA.AlgozzineB. (2012). Making inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 35, 477-490.
ParrishT. (2011, March). Special education funding in New Hampshire with illustrations related to adequacy, equity, and efficiency. Special Education Finance Conference, Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire, Concord.
35.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (1972).
36.
P. J. v. State of Connecticut, Civil No. 291CV00180 (Ct. 2002).
37.
P. J. v. State of Connecticut State Board of Education, 788 F. Supp. 673 (D. Conn. 1992).
38.
RupparA. L.DymondS. K.GaffneyJ. S. (2011). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 100-111.
39.
RupparA. L.GaffneyJ. S. (2011). Individualized education program team decisions: A preliminary study of conversations, negotiations, and power. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 11-22.
40.
RyndakD. L.JacksonL. B.WhiteJ. M. (2013). Involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K-12 inclusive-education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1, 28-49.
41.
RyndakD. L.ReardonR.BennerS.WardT. (2007). Transitioning to district-wide inclusive services: The ongoing journey and its accompanying complexities. Research and Practices for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 228-246.
42.
Sacramento City Unified School District. v. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1207 (1994).
43.
SailorW. (2002). Devolution, school/community/family partnerships, and inclusive education. In SailorW. (Ed.), Whole-school success and inclusive education: Building partnerships for learning, achievement, and accountability (Special Education Series, pp. 7-25). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
SkrticT. M.SailorW.GeeK. (1996). Voice, collaboration, and inclusion: Democratic themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 142-157.
46.
SmithA.KozleskiE. B. (2005). Witnessing Brown: Pursuit of an equity agenda in American education. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 270-280.
47.
SmithP. (2007). Have we made any progress? Including students with intellectual disabilities in regular education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 297-309.
48.
SmithP. (Ed.). (2010). Whatever happened to inclusion? The place of students with intellectual disabilities in education (Disabilities Studies in Education, Vol. 7). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
49.
SommersteinM.SommersteinL.SommersteinR.SommersteinD.RyndakD. L. (2014). Forty years of living and thriving with disabilities: Perceptions of a self-advocate and her family. In AgranM.BrownF.HughesC.QuirkC.RyndakD. (Eds.), Equity and full participation for individuals with severe disabilities: A vision for the future (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
50.
SoukupJ. H.WehmeyerM. L.BashinskiS. M.BovairdJ. A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101-120.
51.
SpoonerF.KnightV.BrowderD.JimenezB.DiBiaseW. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 62-75.
52.
SpragueJ. R.HornerR. H. (2006). School wide positive behavioral supports. In JimersonS. R.FurlongM. J. (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 413-427). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
TaylorS. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 13, 41-53.
54.
TaylorS. (2004). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 29, 218-230.
55.
TaylorS.RacinoJ.KnollJ.LutfiyyaZ. (1987). The nonrestrictive environment: On community integration for people with the most severe disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The right IDEA, IDEA Technical Assistance and Guidance, Indicator 5B Summary. Retrieved from http://therightidea.tadnet.org/assets/1931
58.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2011). Thirtieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2008. Washington, DC: Author.
59.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2012). Thirty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2009. Washington, DC: Author.
60.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD. L.Lapp-RinckerG.AgranM. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262-272.
