An Exploration of the Meaning and Practice of Special Education in the Context of Full Inclusion of Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

In the two decades since the implementation of P.L. 94-142, great strides have been made in the provision of free, appropriate, and publicly funded education services to students with disabilities. P.L. 94-142 established the zero reject principle in public education and profoundly influenced the levels of educational opportunity made available to previously unserved students. But it is the Least Restrictive Appropriate Placement provision (LRA, or LRE, as it is more commonly known) (Turnbull, 1986) that has truly revolutionized schooling for students with disabilities, even those with mild to moderate disabilities already served by the public schools at the time the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) was passed. The LRE provision of the Act stipulates that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of handicapped children from the regular education environment will occur only when the nature or severity of a child's handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplemental aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Turnbull, 1986, p. 134). One response to this provision has been the movement toward more integrated educational programs for students with disabilities. This movement is not reflected in the statistical summaries published in the annual reports to Congress because the categories into which data are summarized—general class and resource room—are too broad to reflect what is happening. Anyone who reads the journals, attends professional meetings, or works in schools, however, has witnessed a significant increase in the use of administrative arrangements in which the education of students with disabilities is a shared responsibility between general and education teachers, as called for by Will (1986) in her launching of the Regular Education Initiative. The movement toward integration appears at a time when there is a growing concern among educators, researchers, funding and regulatory agency officials, and the general public that education in the United States is not meeting the needs of a great number of children and youth. Evidence sparking this concern seems to be all around us, reported in scientific literature and in the popular press, and has spurred a massive restructuring effort and the National Goals 2000 movement (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). At the same time, there have been growing criticisms of Chapter 1, a large-scale pull-out education program aimed at students educationally at risk. The Title 1/