lre news home  

Moving Forward with Responsible Inclusive Practice: Moving Beyond Access

Sarah Barzee, Assistant Director for Program Development, SERC

The Settlement Agreement reached three years ago in the P.J. ET AL v. State of Connecticut, Board of Education, ET AL class action lawsuit established the expectation that students with intellectual disabilities be provided greater access to high quality educational opportunities in general education settings. The five goals and outcomes set forth in the Settlement Agreement maintain that students with intellectual disabilities should be provided with the opportunity to attend their home schools, have opportunities for increased time with non-disabled peers, and receive the majority of their instruction – eighty percent or higher – in the general education classroom.

So, what are we trying to accomplish as we support schools in becoming more inclusive? As reflected in the evolving special education law, the ultimate goal is to achieve effective results for students with disabilities within the general education setting. Three years after the Settlement Agreement was reached, Connecticut districts have made considerable progress toward these goals and outcomes. However, the progress must continue; there is still a great deal of work to be done to realize the vision of inclusive education in our schools. Now that more students have been provided physical access to general education settings and classrooms, educators and families must continue to work together to ensure that students are also provided access to the highest quality curriculum and instruction.

The first federal special education legislation, Education of All Handicapped Children Act, established the requirement that schools provide students with disabilities a “ free, appropriate, public education” (FAPE) in the “ leas t restrictive environment” (LRE).The Supreme Court decision in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) provided additional guidance regarding FAPE. The Supreme Court decision, as delivered by Justice Rehnquist, held that “‘free, appropriate, public education’ is satisfied when state provides personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the <child with a disability> to benefit educationally from that instruction,” and held that, if the child is being educated in the regular classrooms of the public education system, such instruction “should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade” ( Rowley, p. 4). The Court concluded that “The Act consists of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the <child with a disability>” ( Rowley, p.7) .

In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized. At this time, emphasis was given to educational benefit. According to Senate Report No. 17 (1997), “this review and reauthorization of the IDEA is needed to move to the next step of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities: to improve their educational achievement.” The report goes on to say, “This Senate committee believes that the critical issue now is to place greater emphasis on improving student performance and ensuring that children with disabilities receive a quality public education. Educational achievement for children with disabilities, while improving, is still less than satisfactory…Congress “expressly ‘recognize(d)…the process of providing special education and related services…is not guaranteed to produce any particular outcome.”

When IDEA was once again reauthorized in 2004 it indicated that, for a student with a disability, the IEP must include…

“A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services…to be provided to the child…

  • to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;
  • To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum…and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities…” [20 U.S.C. sec. 614 (d)(1)(A)(i) (IV)].

While Congress recognized that specific outcomes could not be guaranteed as a result of special education and related services, it stressed that improving outcomes for students with disabilities must be the primary focus of educators.

For years many educators have worked diligently and put forth intense effort to assist students with disabilities in meeting their academic, social, and behavioral goals. However, the time has come when effort and intent are no longer enough if they are not accompanied by visible results and high quality outcomes. These outcomes include academic success,behavioral growth, and long-term benefit, and must be evidenced by clear indicators:

Academic success is evidenced by passing grades, advancement from grade to grade, progress on IEP goals with increased goal complexity, goal mastery, increased integration into general education standards, and meeting general education standards.

Behavioral growth is evidenced by positive changes in student behavior, increased attendance, decrease in discipline concerns, increase in integration into the general education setting, and acceptance by peers.

Long-term benefit may be evidenced by indicators such as completion of high school, participation in higher education, competitive employment, self-advocacy skills, a sense of self and community, meaningful relationships, and the ability to lead a productive, meaningful life.

In order to realize these goals, educators must implement specially designed instruction and the appropriate supports and services so that students with disabilities in inclusive settings are truly achieving.

In regards to achievement, I would like to congratulate the many educators throughout Connecticut who have made progress in the past few years in including students with disabilities to greater and greater degrees in their home schools and general education classrooms. Now, we must work together to ensure that students are provided with access to high quality instruction and appropriate supports and services in order to make progress in these settings.

Recently, SERC sponsored the Eighth Annual Conference on Educating Students with Disabilities in General Education Settings, Expanding Horizons. This year’s conference format was new for SERC. Instead of relying on the knowledge and talents of national experts, SERC chose to spotlight the promising practices that are occurring throughout Connecticut as we move forward with implementing responsible inclusive practices. (See “Expanding Ideas at Expanding Horizons,” page 1.) Three years ago, Expanding Horizons could not have relied on this type of professional development format. Why? Simply, we either did not have, or were not aware of, the practices that were showcased. I believe that the more we see of promising practices in our schools, and the more success stories we hear of students with disabilities making progress in general education settings, the greater the likelihood that more educators will believe that students with disabilities can learn… and moreover, that they can learn and make progress in general education settings! Seeing truly is believing!

References

Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Sch. Dist. V. Rowley, 48 U.S. 176 (1982).

Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub.L. No. 94-142 (codified as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).

P.J. ET AL v. State of Connecticut , Board of Education, ET AL, Civil Action No.: 2:91 CV00180, May 22, 2002).

S. Rep. No. 17, 105 th Cong., 1st Sess., pg. 3 (1997).

For additional information, contact Sarah Barzee, Assistant Director for Program Development, SERC, (860) 632-1485, ext. 370, or barzee@ctserc.org.

Next Article: State of the State
Previous Article: Making Progress in Connecticut