Inclusion in Public Schools: The Impact of Special Education

One of the most controversial topics in special education is the concept of inclusion. In this case, inclusion represents the belief that students with disabilities should be integrated into general education classrooms whether or not they can meet the educational standards. This concept is outlined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B as the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and is commonly referred to as “mainstreaming”.

IDEA is a four-part piece of American legislation (federal law) that requires schools to meet the educational needs of eligible students with disabilities. Specifically, looking at IDEA Part B, and the least restrictive environment, the concept of inclusion varies widely, as the law is left open for interpretation by each state. The Individualized Education Plan team, or in Connecticut, the Program Placement Team (PPT) interprets and determines what the least restrictive environment is for each child individually. Reviewing the history IDEA Part B, the implementation of the least restrictive environment in the state of Connecticut, and how this portion of federal law impacts occupational therapy practitioners and their clients may help us better understand it’s importance.

The History of the Law

IDEA is a measure that has opened up public schools to millions of children with disabilities. More than forty years ago, nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities were excluded from public schools, and in the years before IDEA was enacted, only one in five children with disabilities had access to quality education. The first legislation was known as the Education of Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1975. In 1990, amendments to the law were passed, thus changing the name to IDEA. In 1997 and again in 2004, additional amendments were passed to ensure equal access to education.

IDEA Part B was designed to ensure that children with disabilities are given a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The least restrictive environment states that students with disabilities receive their education with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent and that special education students are not to be removed from the general education setting unless education in general classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily. As of 2015, over 6.9 million students with disabilities have access to special education and related services. Additionally, according to the 38th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 62.6% of students with disabilities spend more than 80% of their school days in general education settings.

Despite these statistics, students with disabilities continue to be among the most segregated in public schools for many reasons, including lack of training, class size, insufficient time, lack of accountability for the student with disabilities, and inappropriate placement. Additionally, principles of the least restrictive environment have been interpreted “in ways that perpetuate segregation, rather than increasing students’ access to meaningful curriculum in inclusive educational contexts”. This means that federal regulations do not provide context or direction on how different concepts of the least restrictive environment are determined. As a result, there is a significant variation between districts and state to state in how the least restrictive environment principle is enforced. Misinterpretation of the least restrictive environment allows for placement in contained classrooms away from non-disabled peers, thus creating unnatural proportions of students with disabilities in some settings.

Funding can also be a significant barrier, as some states’ only provide funding for special education staff if it can be proven that the teacher has an actual classroom of students with particular labels. This makes it difficult for a local school district to justify state funds for a special education teacher whose students spend most of their time in a general education classroom with supplementary aids and services. Furthermore, historical placement patterns are likely to maintain the segregated status quo. For example, if a district has historically placed a student with more intensive needs in a self-contained class, it typically continues to do so without leadership at the state or federal level requiring a different practice. Lastly, although the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) monitors placement data for each state, there are no incentives or sanctions if states do not achieve a universal level of student participation in the general education classroom.

Least Restrictive Environment in Connecticut

Years ago in the state of Connecticut, most students with disabilities spent their school days in self-contained classrooms, with limited interaction with their non-disabled peers, but the settlement of a class-action lawsuit known as the “P.J. case” changed everything. In this landmark case, a group of students and their families filed a suit against the Connecticut State Board of Education, the State Commissioner of Education and certain local school districts. On December 13, 1993 this case was a certified class action “as to plaintiffs’ claims against state defendants”. The court defined the class as: “All mentally retarded school-age children in Connecticut who have been identified as needing special education and who, on or after February 20, 1991, are not educated in regular classrooms”.

Since the PJ case changed the face of special education in Connecticut and prompted the state to move toward inclusion for all students with disabilities, as of the 2010–11 school year, about 53 percent of the 2,461 intellectually disabled students age 3 to 21 spent at least 80 percent of their time with non-disabled peers, according to the state Department of Education. Whereas at the time of the agreement, only about 13 percent of intellectually disabled students spent 80 percent or more of their day in such an environment. While it is much more common for disabled children to be with their non-disabled peers than it was a before the case, there continues to be a debate on how well the state and local school districts are implementing the least restrictive environment and how well it is working.

The Impact of Inclusion

Research supports the benefits of inclusion or mainstreaming for elementary aged children with and without disabilities, and some studies have shown that children with disabilities in inclusive settings experienced greater cognitive, socio-emotional and communication development than children with disabilities who were in contained settings. Additionally, children with disabilities tend to have similar levels of engagement as their typically developing peers and are more likely to practice newly acquired skills in inclusive settings as compared to contained settings. Thus inclusion is an extremely important topic to advocate for and to make schools more accountable for. Taking a closer look at the impact of inclusion on students, parents, teachers, and occupational therapy practitioners would help us further understand the importance of this topic and to better advocate.

The Students

The Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) of students with disabilities who are mainstreamed contain more academic objectives, and more references to best practices than IEPs developed for students in contained settings. Additionally, studies have indicated that the instruction provided to students while mainstreamed is comparable or superior to the instruction in contained settings. Further, students with disabilities who are fully mainstreamed show significantly higher levels of engagement in school activities, higher participation in integrated school environments and initiate and engage in socialization with peers and adults to a higher degree.

According to a literature review of community participation of people with intellectual disabilities, “there was one consistent conclusion: people with intellectual disabilities living in community settings have greater participation in major life activities, including education, employment and community engagement than those living in segregated settings”. One common criticism of inclusive education is that mainstreaming will negatively impact the achievement of peers without disabilities. However, studies that have shown that there is no meaningful impact on the academic performance of students without disabilities when students with severe disabilities are included in general education classrooms.

The Parents and Teachers

Parents of children with disabilities have differing opinions on inclusion depending on their child and the situation. Some parents report that inclusive practices contribute to their child’s self-esteem and happiness as well as reshape their own expectations of the child’s ability to develop and learn with others. Others say that an outside placement at a separate school, specifically for disabled students, is what ultimately worked for their child.

From a teacher’s perspective, most educators agree that mainstreaming results in positive change in their attitudes and job responsibilities, as long as they are supported with training, collaboration and additional assistance, such as a co-teacher or a paraprofessional. Collaboration creates opportunities for general and special educators as well as family members to share their knowledge and experience. This allows the team to better individualize learning, increase students’ engagement, and support the development of positive social relationships. Mainstreaming also helps general education teachers adapt their teaching style to a more diverse group of learners. Despite this, many teachers feel there is a severe lack in training and support, often times due to lack of budget, which hinders their ability to be an effective teacher and collaborator.

The OT practitioner

Inclusion impacts the school occupational therapy practitioner in several ways. We traditionally have provided pull out services in one to one settings, and as time has progressed, more and more districts are moving towards grouping and receiving related services in the classroom to increase and maximize time with nondisabled peers. This type of service delivery has many benefits, often involving more collaboration with teachers, other service providers, and staff. Additional benefits of having an occupational therapist in the classroom are the same as having a special education teacher — further exchange of knowledge and experience to be able to better individualize our students’ programming. Although results are beneficial, inclusion during related service time is oftentimes for reasons related to limited budget and unfortunately, occupational therapy practitioners are unofficially being substituted for paraprofessionals and special education teachers due to the lack of resources. This is a great reason to be an advocate for transparency in inclusion practices at our schools and to advocate for better funding for our schools’ special education programs.

Advocacy in Occupational Therapy

To advocate for more inclusive practices in the schools and educational settings, occupational therapy practitioners should consider how to build inclusive environments. By collaborating with parents, teachers, other team members, practitioners can “support the occupations of the child, which may include play and social participation, education, and activities of daily living skills across all contexts”. To advocate for community inclusion for children with disabilities, practitioners should collaborate with families, the local community, and larger community agencies to make programs accessible and to support accommodation. Promoting the development and socio-emotional skills can be successfully facilitated through inclusion in community settings using a family-centered approach as well. Through collaboration and the use of inclusive practices, practitioners can support the child’s successful participation in schools as well as community settings.

In regards to national advocacy efforts involving occupational therapy, most recently, on May 17, 2017, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania convened a press conference with other senators, parents and disability advocates, to address how the Medicaid restructuring and cuts would affect schools and thus the implementation of IDEA. Senator Casey asked the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) to invite an occupational therapist to share the perspective of a school-based service provider at the press conference, as AOTA’s ongoing relationship with the senator and his staff made them well aware of occupational therapy’s important role with children with disabilities in the school systems. AOTA member Marbea Tammaro spoke about how occupational therapy services reimbursed by Medicaid funds can assist in students with disabilities’ success in school. Should these changes to Medicaid be included in the Senate bill and passed into law, schools will be forced to make difficult decisions on how to spend shrinking resources, which would impact the finances required to support and facilitate inclusion. These decisions may also impact caseload size and funding for equipment, which would directly affect occupational therapy practitioners working in the schools.

Other Advocacy Efforts

There are many agencies and organizations whose purpose includes advocating for inclusion both in the school systems and in the community including the following:

• The Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC), a statewide nonprofit organization that provides support to families of children with a disability or chronic illness, from birth through 26. CPAC is staffed by trained parents of kids with disabilities who have personal experience with the law and disability issues. CPAC staff conducts workshops for parents as well as in-service presentations for schools, teachers-in-training and service providers throughout the state so that they may better understand and serve the parents with whom they work. The website has a special section reviewing inclusion with many relevant resources and articles.

• The Inclusion Campaign, a collaborative group of New Jersey students, parents and non-profit organizations working to ensure that students with disabilities have their place in the general education classroom throughout New Jersey. Their philosophy is that “all students are entitled to an equitable share of educational resources and can achieve to their highest potential” and they support educational policies and practices related to that philosophy.

• TASH, founded in 1975, advocates for human rights and inclusion for people with significant disabilities and support needs — “those most vulnerable to segregation, abuse, neglect and institutionalization”. TASH “works to advance inclusive communities through advocacy, research, professional development, policy, and information and resources for parents, families and self-advocates”. They also advocate for full membership, participation and learning for all students with disabilities, and within inclusive general education settings. TASH believes that “education through general education classrooms involves more than just a physical presence. It also includes access to the curriculum”.

• Advocacy for Inclusion, which “provides independent individual, self and systemic advocacy for people with disabilities”. Advocacy for Inclusion is a “Disabled Peoples Organization” which means the majority of the board, members and staff are people with disabilities.

Inclusion continues to be one of the most debated topics in special education. Although the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Part B was designed to ensure that children with disabilities are given a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, studies have indicated that how states, districts, and even schools interpret this law can vary widely. We have reviewed the barriers that cause this variation, the history of the federal law, as well as Connecticut’s experience with implementing the least restrictive environment. Additionally, the impact of inclusion on the students, the parents, the teachers, and on occupational therapy practitioners was reviewed. Advocacy efforts by both occupational therapy practitioners and other organizations may help us better communicate the importance of inclusion and its continued relevance in today’s society.

References

Advocacy for Inclusion (2013). Retrieved from http://www.advocacyforinclusion.org/

American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA). (2017). Senator invites OT to speak about protecting Medicaid funding in the schools. Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press. Retrieved from https://www.aota.org/Advocacy-Policy/Congressional-Affairs/Legislative-Issues-Update/2017/senator-invites-ot-speak-protect-medicaid-schools.aspx

Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT). (2015). What is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/what-individuals-disabilities-education-act

Field, R. (2015). Perceptions on inclusion in elementary schools. Unpublished Certificate of Advanced Study Thesis, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/edl/4

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html

P.J. et al. v. State of Connecticut, Board of Education, et al. (1991). Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/182449500/P-J-Case-settlement-agreement

Ryndak, D., Taub, D., Jorgensen, C., Gonsier-Gerdin, J., Arndt, K., Sauer, J., … Allcock, H.(2014). Policy and the impact on placement, involvement, and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 65–74. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1540796914533942?journalCode=rpsd

Schranz, C., & Sane, A. (2017). Promoting inclusion and participation in the community for children. SIS Quarterly Practice Connections. 2(1), 7–9.

Smith, H. (2015). Celebrating 40 years of IDEA. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/osers/category/events/idea-40th-anniversary/

Sullo, M. (2013). Decade after ‘P.J.’ settlement, special education debate rages in Connecticut.

New Haven Register. Retrieved from http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20131109/decade-after-pj-settlement-special-education-debate-rages-in-connecticut

TASH. (2017). Retrieved from https://tash.org/advocacy-issues/inclusive-education/

The Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC). (2017). Retrieved at http://www.cpacinc.org/hot-topics/inclusion/

The Inclusion Campaign. (n.d.). The Benefits of Inclusive Education. Retrieved from http://www.inclusioncampaign.org/

United States Department of Education [USDE] (2015). Policy statement on inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood programs. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/earlylearning/joint-statement-full-text.pdf

United States Department of Education [USDE] (2016). Thirty-eighth annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, parts B and C. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2016/parts-b-c/index.html