| |
|
|
- What is Inclusion?
The term inclusion is used widely in educational circles and particularly in the disability field, but in truth there is no one definition for this word. It has been embraced by politicians, bilingual educators, people calling for systemic reform, minority groups-in short, inclusion is not just a disability issue.
Within this field, other words are often used interchangeably with inclusion-mainstreaming and integration, for instance - but these words also are not well or universally defined and often are not really synonymous with inclusion at all. In short, there is confusion about inclusion.
In keeping with the general way in which individuals and organizations in the disability field use the term inclusion, inclusion refers to the process and practice of educating students with disabilities in the general education classrooms of their neighborhood school (the school they would normally attend if they did not have a disability). We speak of "full" inclusion for students with disabilities who receive their entire education within the general education setting (sometimes referred to as the mainstream). In contrast, "partial" inclusion would refer to the practice of educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms for some portion of their school day, while they spend the other portion of the day receiving instruction in a special education classroom or resource room outside of the mainstream. Variations exist as well from school to school, district to district, and state to state in how many students are included. In one location, all students may be fully included, due to that area's commitment to practice inclusion, while in other locations some students are fully included, some are partially included, and some are not included at all. Thus, inclusion has not one face, but many.
- What Legal Basis Exists for Inclusion?
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA-does not use the term "inclusion". Rather, IDEA refers to providing each eligible student with a free appropriate public education in what is known as the "least restrictive environment" (LRE), with the accommodations and supports necessary for the student to benefit from his or her education.
In a November 23, 1994 memorandum to the Chief State School Officers, the U.S. Department of Education offered clarification regarding IDEA's least restrictive environment provisions, which states "IDEA's strong preference for educating students with disabilities in regular classes with appropriate aids and supports" (Heumann & Hehir, 1994, p.3). This makes it clear that a student's placement in the general education classroom is the first option the IEP team must consider.
An integral part of deciding whether or not the student will be educated within the general education classroom is an individualized inquiry into the possible range of aids and supports that are needed to ensure that the student can be educated satisfactorily in that environment. If the IEP team determines that the student can be educated satisfactorily in the general education classroom, "that placement is the LRE placement for that student," (Heumann, 1994 p.2). Thus, while not a mandate for inclusion, IDEA's LRE requirements give quite adequate support for it's practice.
However, the IEP team may determine that the student cannot be educated satisfactorily in the general education classroom, even when the appropriate aids and supports are provided. An alternative placement must then be considered. Accordingly, schools are required to ensure that "a continuum of alternative placements is available."
This continuum must include the range of alternative placements listed in the definition of special education-specifically, "instruction in regular class, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions". According to a September 16, 1994 memorandum to the National,Education Association(NEA), the U.S. Department of Education stated that the required continuum of alternative placements "reinforces the importance of the individualized inquiry, not a 'one size fits all' approach in determining what placement is the LRE for each student with a disability" (Heumann, 1994, pp. 2-3). As such, the requirement for a continuum of alternative placements provides support for those who argue that inclusion cannot and should not be required for all students. Decisions about placement in the mainstream, in separate classes or schools, or in a mixture of both, must be made on an individualized basis, considering the student in question and his or her special needs.
|
|
