Full Inclusion

A Path for Integration or Isolation

Bibliographic Data

ID7425944
AuthorsMichael Stinson (0000-0003-3879-1939, Rochester Institute of Technology), Michael S Stinson, Harry G Lang
Year1994
Volume139
Issue2b
Pages156-159
Publication date1994-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican annals of the deaf (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-726X • E-ISSN: 1543-0375
PublisherProject MUSE (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1353/aad.2012.0133
PMID8092067
OpenAlexW2071359608
LanguageEN
Citations received10
References cited4

Topic of Interest: Full Inclusion 3. the effect of the child with a disability on the rest of the class 4. the cost of a regular-education placement with proper supplementary aids and services As shown above, the standards applied by the courts do not address the potential benefits of a placement in a program or school for the deaf. As currently written and interpreted by the courts, IDEA mandates that preference be given to placement in the regular classroom with non-disabled peers. Although the law clearly states that potentially harmful effects of a placement must be considered, there is no indication that this provision of the law has made a difference in placement decisions affecting students who are deaf. The prevailing belief is that placement in a regular classroom is somehow better than placement in a program designed to serve a specific population. Like all children with disabilities, deaf children have the right to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Many deaf individuals feel, however, that continued movement towards a full-inclusion model, as currently defined, will actually deny many of these children the very rights IDEA purports to protect. Note 1. Full inclusion refers to the placement of all children with disabilities in their neighborhood schools, with nondisabled peers and with the necessary support services. References Board of Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland, 786 F. Supp. 874 (1994). Brown v. Topeka, Kansas, Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (1975). Heumann, J. (1993). Oberti decision is core of the ED's inclusion position. The Special Educator, 9(6), 85-87. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (PL 101-476), 20 U.S.C. § 1400-1495 (1990). Jenkins, J., Pious, C, & Jewell, M. (1990). Special education and the regular education initiative : Basic assumptions. Exceptional Children , 5S.6), 479-491. Kaufman, J. (1991). Restructuring in sociopolitical context: Reservations about the effects of current reform proposals on students with disabilities. InJ. W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 57-66). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore. Kaufman, J., & Hallahan, D.P. (1992). Deinstitutionalization and mainstreaming exceptional children. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research- Vol 1 (6th ed.) (pp. 299-303). New York: Macmillan. Ladd, P. (1992). Deaf culture studies: Towards an end to internal strife. In M. Garretson (Ed.), A Deaf American Monograph. Vol. 42 (pp. 83-88). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. Lord, W. (1991, November). Parent point of view: What is the least restrictive environment for a deaf child? Michigan Statewide Newsletter, p. 4. Mills v. District of Columbia Board of Education , 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972). Padden, C, & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971). Rosen, R. (1992). Politics of deafness. In M. Garretson (Ed.), A Deaf American Monograph . Vol. 42 (pp. 119-124). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1991). Rationale for integration and restructuring: A synopsis . InJ. W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, andmodels(pp. 225-240). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore . Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Schools as inclusive communities. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education- Divergent perspectives (pp. 29-43). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. U.S. Department of Education. (1993, November 2). One third of students with disabilities now in regular classes. Washington, DC: Author. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Full Inclusion: A Path for Integration or Isolation? Michael S. Stinson, Professor and Research Associate Harry G Lang, Professor and Research Associate Center for Research, Teaching, and Learning National Technical Institute for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York In the education of special populations of students, the term "inclusion" has most commonly referred to the physical environment; that is, where students are placed for

Isolation · Least restrictive environment · Special needs · Collaborative Teaching and Inclusion · Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport · Pasture and Agricultural Systems

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub