The term inclusion does not appear in federal special education law. It is an interpretation of LRE, the term that has been in the federal special education law since it was passed in 1975. LRE is the requirement that students with disabilities must be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are not disabled. Since 1997, before general education can be considered NOT to be the LRE, educators are obligated to make ongoing and intensive efforts to find strategies to successfully support students in the general education setting. These strategies are collectively referred to as supplementary aids and services (see FAQ No. 2).

What IDEA says:

Each public agency shall ensure —

That to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and

That special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Inclusion is a set of beliefs about schools, students, teachers, instruction, and learning. Inclusion is the philosophy that LRE is implemented only when all students, including those with disabilities, are welcomed members of their school learning communities, that teaching and learning are differentiated to ensure that all students can experience success, and that all the adults in schools share the responsibility for facilitating student learning. Inclusion DOES NOT mean that pullout services such as resource and self-contained classes are completely eliminated, but it does mean that these restrictive options are considered only when absolutely necessary and only until less restrictive alternatives can be found.

Mainstreaming was the first interpretation of LRE. With mainstreaming, students participate in the general education setting IF they can do most of the work at the same or similar levels as other students (for example, if their reading levels are not too different from the levels of other students). Alternatively, mainstreaming sometimes is the term for students with significant disabilities participating in general education for nonacademic activities such as lunch, recess, and assemblies, or for classes such as art, music, or physical education. Both of these mainstreaming concepts are outdated. That is, decisions about LRE should not be based primarily on a student’s reading level; supplementary aids and services should be implemented to help students learn despite their reading or other academic struggles. Further, students with significant intellectual disabilities still should access learning in academic settings; although they should participate in extracurricular activities and related arts classes, they should not be excluded automatically from general education academic classes.

Many students with disabilities can be successful in the general education setting if assistance is provided to help them overcome learning obstacles and maximize their learning strengths. The phrase supplementary aids and services (SAS) captures this concept in IDEA. SAS are aids, services, and other supports provided in general education or education-related settings that enable students with disabilities to be educated with typical peers. The list of SAS is almost limitless. A few examples include these: instructional modifications such as oral testing instead of written testing, or shortened assignments; specialized instructional methods such as direct instruction; co-teaching; paraprofessionals; consultation with a special educator or other special services provider; staff development; and ongoing monitoring of student progress in a general education class.

The number and type of SAS needed by any particular student with a disability is determined by the IEP committee. General education teachers are obligated to use the SAS determined to be necessary and to work as needed with special educators and related services personnel to ensure that every effort is made to help students succeed in general education settings.

No. The LRE for a child with a disability must be determined on an individual basis, via the IEP committee. Section 330.51 requires school districts to offer a continuum of alternative placements for students who require special education and related services. However, every school professional should be fully aware that a strong bias exists in current legislation to educate students with disabilities in general education settings.

It is not correct to assume that a particular student should not participate in a general education setting. This decision, like others addressed on IEPs depends on the student. The team must consider this placement and explore the SAS that might help to support the student (e.g., assistive technology). If the team decides that the student might be able to be supported, that plan must be implemented. If the team decides that the student cannot benefit from this placement, other options are explored and one selected.

Assuming that an appropriate program with supplementary aids and services can be designed, that program must be tried.

The simple answer to this question is that all students should be included, that is, all students should be welcomed into their learning communities. However, this question usually means “Which students with disabilities should participate in general education for nearly all day and which should not?” Only the IEP committee can make a decision about the appropriate LRE for any individual student. However, this team must seriously attempt to find ways of supporting the student with a disability in the general education classroom before concluding that general education is not an appropriate setting. The entire IEP committee is involved in the decision about student placement. Examples of errors related to LRE include deciding that a student should not be placed in general education solely because the student has difficulty reading, removing the student because of behavior problems that have not been systematically addressed, or deciding that all students with a particular disability label should be placed in a resource or self-contained class.

General education settings always are the preferred placements for students with disabilities. However, school districts may consider several factors in determining placement using questions such as these: Is this student dangerous to himself or other students? Is this student so disruptive or so demanding of teacher attention that, even with behavior interventions systematically implemented, other students' learning is disrupted? Even with SAS will the student receive educational benefit?

No. Placement in the regular classroom concerns the setting where a student with a disability is educated. Participation in the general curriculum concerns what a student learns. Students with significant disabilities might be placed in the general education setting but be accessing an adapted curriculum. Conversely, some students with mild disabilities (for example, those with emotional disabilities) might be placed for at least part of the day in a special education setting but still must access the general curriculum.

The vast majority of students with disabilities are fully capable of learning the same curriculum that other students learn, provided appropriate supports are provided. Thus, the purpose for them being in classes with peers is so that they have equal access to the same learning opportunities as other students—even if they struggle with reading.

Reading level should not be used as the sole basis on which to decide whether a student can succeed in the general education setting. Audiotaped textbooks, use of videos and other media, peer reading, and other strategies are all reasonable accommodations to help a student access the curriculum through means other than print. The use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in which multiple methods for input, use, and output are planned also benefits students with disabilities or other learning needs.

The term “age-appropriate” is not defined in the IDEA, being instead a matter of state law or policy. As a general matter, chronological age-appropriate placement is typically the basis selected by states for grade-level placement. When chronological age is the basis for regular education grade-level placement, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits using any other basis, such as mental age, solely for students with disabilities being included in regular classrooms. See, e.g., Henderson County (NC) Sch. Dist. 19 IDELR 179 (OCR 1992).

Note that different state standards may govern self-contained placements. In Brookhaven (MS) Municipal Separate School District, 16 EHLR 1285 (OCR 1990), OCR determined that students with mental disabilities in self-contained programs were appropriately assigned to classes based primarily upon developmental age instead of chronological age, pursuant to State Guidelines. The school district was accordingly in compliance with Section 504 with regard to age-appropriate.

IDEA regulations addressing school districts' obligation to offer ESY programming when required to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) does not explicitly direct compliance with LRE requirements. Nonetheless, discussions accompanying the publication of the 1997 final regulations affirm that the ESY services must be provided in the child's LRE to the extent practicable.

Yes. IDEA regulations at 34 C.F.R.§ 300.552 state unequivocally that all LRE requirements set out in 34 C.F.R §§ 300.550 through 300.554 apply to all preschool-aged children with disabilities who are entitled to receive a FAPE.

No. Some districts may not operate a regular preschool program. The IDEA does not compel those districts to establish a preschool program for non-disabled children just to provide peer interaction with non-disabled children.

Alternative placements a school district may implement in the absence of a regular education preschool program include the following:

• providing opportunities for the participation (even part-time) of preschool children with disabilities in other preschool programs operated by public agencies (for example, Head Start);
• placing children with disabilities in private school or other governmental or private agency programs that integrate children with disabilities and non-disabled children; and
• locating classes for preschool children with disabilities in regular elementary schools.

Yes, but only if the IEP committee, which meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R § 300.533 determines that placement meets all the requirements of the IDEA, including the LRE requirements of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.550 through 300.554.

Under IDEA, each student’s placement must de determined at least annually, must be based on the student’s IEP, and must be in the school or facility as close as possible to the student’s home.

While the student’s IEP cannot be revised without holding another IEP meeting, which the school district is responsible for convening, IDEA 2004 300.324 (a) (4) states that “…the parent of a child with a disability and the public agency may agree not to convene an IEP meeting for the purposes of making those changes, and instead…amend or modify the child’s current IEP.”

If either the student’s parent or teacher or other service provider wishes to initiate review of the student’s IEP at a point in the school year that does not correspond with the annual IEP review, that individual can request the school district to hold another IEP meeting. If the IEP is revised, following the meeting, the placement team would need to review the student’s IEP to determine if a change in placement would be needed to reflect the revised IEP.

According to IDEA 2004, Sec. 614 (a) (1) (D) Parental Consent (i)(II)Consent for services – “… An agency that is responsible for making a FAPE available to a child with a disability under this part shall seek to obtain informed consent from the parent of such child before providing special education and related services to the child…. (III) Effect on Agency Obligations – If the parent of such child refuses to consent to the receipt of special education and related services, or the parent fails to respond to provide such consent…(aa) the local education agency shall not be considered to be in violation of the requirement to make available a FAPE to the child for the failure to provide such child with the special education and related services for which the local educational agency requests such consent…”

In some districts, SLD has become a “catch-all” disability category for low-achieving students who do not clearly have other disabilities. The message that must be clarified again and again is that special education is not intended to be “help” for every struggling student—it is designed only for a specific group of students with extraordinary special needs. Many students who are low achievers need all the talents of resourceful and creative classroom teachers so that they can reach their potential. Although classrooms serve heterogeneous groups of children and teachers are expected to address a wide range of individual differences in cognitive, academic, and behavioral development, it is still inappropriate to rule a student eligible because teachers are not meeting that student’s learning needs.

The word culture often is used in casual conversation to connote the beliefs and social practices typically associated with a person’s racial or ethnic background, national origin, and native language group. Culture also encompasses the customary beliefs, social practices, and traits of a group of people, deriving from their socioeconomic status, level of education, religion, age, generation, number of years or generation of residence in the United States, and other group affiliations. “Family values” also may be added to the list. Often, when the term cultural difference is used in the context of schools and special education, it refers to awareness of the unique characteristics that each learner brings to the instructional environment and how those characteristics might be different that the characteristics of teachers and administrators.

One simple example of how one’s own cultural beliefs can affect perceptions, possibly with negative outcomes for students, was recently reported in the research literature. Teachers were asked to watch videotapes of two students walking down a hall. One student walked in a traditional way. The other student walked using a “stroll,” that is, using a stylized walking pattern. Teachers rated the student who strolled as less motivated about learning and likely to have lower achievement than the student who walked in a traditional way. This result held regardless of the race/ethnicity of the students shown on the videotape.

Families’ beliefs about appropriate child-rearing practices can affect early learning. For example, if a young child is not encouraged to speak, language development may be delayed.

In many cases, cultural difference is not the critical factor affecting early learning, but poverty is. Many students who are at risk for reading failure live in poverty, and they often have not had the benefit of early childhood education and preschool experiences. Some of these students can succeed in school if they receive early, intense, research-based reading instruction. Without such instruction, some of these students end up ruled eligible for special education, an unfortunate and avoidable outcome for many.

Regardless of race, if a student meets the eligibility criteria for SLD, then the district must rule the child eligible for special education services. However, districts also must work diligently to ensure that students are not being identified just because they need help, and they must attempt to address student needs using strategies before special education is considered. The TST procedure is designed exactly for this purpose.

The special education director should attempt to address this issue with the principal. If resolution cannot be achieved between the special education director and the principal, the issue should be addressed with the superintendent.

No. Specific programs are not the basis for calculating SLD data. However, the annual performance data (data profiles) will indicate whether a district is meeting the annual State goals. Each district will complete an annual Self-Review as part of the Annual LEA Project Application. Information such as this could be documented in the Self-Review and also could be included in Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) for districts in corrective action phases.

It also should be noted that the approach described sounds somewhat as though it should operate within the TST process and not be associated with special education at all. If young students receive intensive interventions—as strongly supported by research for struggling young learners--- and do not need special education as a result, why would they be ruled eligible in the first place?

Special education services are to be provided to those students who have been ruled eligible for special education and related services. Although reluctance to assign labels to students is understandable, the eligibility ruling gives the student special protections through special education law and establishes the requirement that the student must receive an appropriate education.

While nothing specific exists in the MS Policies and Procedures which addresses FBA concerning students without disabilities, it is considered best practice that an FBA be provided to any student with behavioral concerns “in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others…” 300.324 (2); 300.524

Local education agencies (LEAs) must ensure that students with disabilities who are receiving special education and related services are reevaluated as other conditions warrant. If new conditions arise (for example, emotional or behavior problems), the IEP committee must consider their impact on the child’s ability to benefit from educational services. The team also must, as warranted consider the possibility that another disability exists, possibly gathering additional data (i.e., tests and other evaluations materials) to assist in decision-making. Regardless of the eligibility determination made, the IEP should reflect services needed to enable the student to benefit from the general curriculum.

Most students with disabilities are expected to fully access the general curriculum and to succeed in reaching the standards being set by MDE and in school districts. Ensuring that students are educated with their peers and provided with SAS helps to ensure that this occurs. IEP goals should be written to address the student’s needs, but based as much as possible on the appropriate grade-level curriculum standards. For example, if the standard requires students to read and comprehend expository text, the same standard should exist for students with disabilities even if their reading material is at a lower level than that of other students