This is probably the most difficult response thus far
because full inclusion of a disable student in a regular education without regard
to the cost and determent of learning for the other students is absurd. I do
not harken to the days before the early 1970’s where students with disabilities
were vilified, marginalized, and abused. Quite the contrary, I fall upon the
jurisprudence that has both rallied the equality of disabled students and
supported logical pleas of school districts to find the least restrictive
environment. The ultimate goal for every child should be and is a shared goal
between schools and parents – full inclusion as the least restrictive
environment as deemed appropriate by all stakeholders and sometimes the court.
The inclusion of disable students engaging in shared
curriculum with non-disabled students in the LRE is important. Homogenizing
students with disabilities can limit growth and development and inadequately
prepares these students for the world at large. However, “it makes no
more sense to place every child with a disability in a regular classroom that
it did to keep every child with a disability in a special segregated program.”
(Stein, 1994, p. 22)
The courts have negotiated the rights of the disabled
students with the efforts and capabilities of school districts. One benchmark
case finally arrived in the laps of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994.Sacramento
City School Dist. V. Rachel H.
Rachel a student of the school district of Sacramento held
an IQ of 44 labeled a severe disable student. The district sought to mainstream
her instead of providing a full inclusion. The parents thought differently.
While in litigation, the parents enrolled Rachel into a full inclusion private
school setting where she made significant strides in learning language and
other skills from modeling the behavior of the other students in the general
education classroom (Daniel, 1997). The courts sided with Rachel and her
parents but not without establishing a four-part balancing test to be applied
in discerning which setting is the more educationally appropriate that
considered the opportunities for educational benefit of inclusion versus
self-containment, the opportunities of the development of non-academic skills,
the impact of the disable child within and on the regular classroom, and
finally the possible adverse cost of inclusion (Daniel, 1997).
This balanced test is the sensible approach while keeping in
sight the goal of full inclusion as a LRE. The courts have defended the rights
of the disabled while keeping the interests of the mission of a school.
References
Dainel,
P. (1997). Education students with disabilities in the least restrictive
environment A slippery slope for educators. Journal of Educational
Administration, 35(5), 397-410. Retrieved fromhttp://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220457979?accountid=12085
Stein,
J. (1994). Total inclusion or least restrictive environment? Journal of
Physical Education, recreation & Dance, 65(9), 21 – 25. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220457979?accountid=12085
No comments:
Post a Comment