Weighing Costs and Benefits

Abstract

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that all students receive access to the general education curriculum but does not define adequate access. Street-level bureaucracy theory was used to investigate special educators’ interpretation of their role and responsibility to create academic access for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with elementary, middle, and secondary special educators (n = 33) across one state. Findings revealed that access was ultimately a consistent series of decisions. Participants relied on their ethical beliefs about disability and schooling to make cost–benefit decisions, predicting and assigning value to the long-term benefits of academic activities. Researchers and policymakers concerned with academic access should recognize that special educators’ implementation of new interventions will likely be filtered through the process of access described. New initiatives and strategies should explicitly illustrate how they increase the benefits and reduce the costs of inclusive academic experiences for students with severe disabilities.