STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Students With Learning Disabilities

Students with Learning Disabilities

Introduction

Adopting full inclusion as the implementation strategy for educating children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) will eliminate the discretion granted parents and guardians under the act. Parents and guardians will no longer be able to participate meaningfully in deciding where their child should be educated. As active players in drafting the individualized education plan for each child with disabilities, school social workers must understand the outcomes associated with encouraging the full inclusion of all children with disabilities in the regular education classroom. This article discusses the intent of IDEA, its legal interpretations, and implications for school social workers. (Baker, 1994-95)A battle is raging in America's public school classrooms. A line in the sand has been drawn on the basis of divergent interpretations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P.L. 101-476), which was reauthorized effective June 1997. The act contains a two-pronged mandate designed to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities in participating states: All children with disabilities are entitled to a (1) "free and appropriate education," which must occur (2) "to the maximum extent appropriate...with children who are not disabled" (P.L. 101-476, Subsection 1412 (1), 1412(5)(B)). (Meredith , 1995)Variant interpretations of the meaning of the act's second mandate are the source of the controversy. Currently, full inclusionists are attempting to distort the act's intent by elevating the implementation strategy to which they adhere--full inclusion--to the level of statutory right.

The potential effect of adopting full inclusion as the implementation strategy for educating children with disabilities is arguably both positive and negative. Full inclusion of all children with disabilities is lauded as the ultimate normalization mechanism by which to integrate these children and contribute to their social acceptance. But it also is feared that it is a guise under which schools could reduce or eliminate the broad continuum of placement opportunities guaranteed in the federal regulations for IDEA. (Banerji, 1995)One outcome of implementing full inclusion is clear. If all children with disabilities are required to be placed in the regular classroom by right, full inclusion will eliminate the discretion granted to parents under IDEA in determining the appropriate placement for their child during the individualized education plan (IEP) process. School social workers must examine all possible outcomes in determining what stance they will take regarding full inclusion. (Dubow, 1989)Terminology

The term "full inclusion" does not appear in IDEA; neither does the term "mainstreaming." Researchers differentiated between the two concepts. They defined mainstreaming as integrating children with disabilities and nondisabled children for a portion of the day, usually during nonacademic periods. Full inclusion differs from mainstreaming in that full inclusion means teaching all students in a regular education classroom, at their hometown school, with their age and grade peers, for the whole day with support services provided in that classroom. In short, full inclusion demands that support services be brought to the child rather than allowing the child to be moved to a segregated setting ...