A recent U.S. Supreme Court case that was meant to be a watershed moment for the Down syndrome community and all students with disabilities, has quickly turned into yet another way to try and segregate our children.
The Endrew F. can be compared to the Brown v. Board of Education ruling for African American students. In Endrew F., The Supreme Court unanimously ruled schools must be held to a “markedly more demanding” standard when educating students with disabilities. But school boards are using the high court case to make an argument for continued segregation of students with the most significant disabilities.
Read Related Post Here: Realizing the Promise of the Endrew Supreme Court Case
It’s been 10 months since the Supreme Court created a new standard that requires special education students to meet academic standards and advance grade to grade. In that short time two cases revolving around the segregation of students with Down syndrome have put in question the promise of Endrew F.
As these two cases advance to the Ninth and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the question will be: How will the courts interpret Endrew F. for students with intellectual disabilities? Can these students only receive “more meaningful benefit” in a self-contained class?
Read Related Post Here: 7 Research Studies You Can Use at Your Child’s Next IEP Meeting to Win the Fight for Inclusion
If you’ve read this blog before, or have any knowledge of inclusion for students with Down syndrome, you know there’s NO research that shows more academic benefit for students with the most significant disabilities in self-contained classrooms. In fact, every research study done since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act first became law in 1975, shows the regular classroom with proper supports provides all students with the best outcomes.
In both of the current cases at the federal appellate court level, R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District and L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education, the parents and their supporters (COPAA, NDSC, NDSS, and other disability rights organizations) argue the boys with Down syndrome are in fact making progress in the regular classroom. You can read more about the cases below.
Read Related Post Here: L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education and R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District
But the National School Boards Associations filed an amicus brief against the boys, and in favor of the school districts that want to segregate them. The organization that supports more than 90,000 school board members argues “academic benefit is the key factor for a court determining whether a school district has provided services in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).” The organization believes Endrew F. strengthened the importance of the educational benefit factor in LRE determinations. They stressed that school personnel are the experts when deciding if progress has been made and if placement should change, and courts shouldn’t “second guess” this judgement.
Read the National School Boards Association amicus brief for the R.M. Gilbert Unified School District here and for the L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education case here.
Special Education Attorney and Professor, Susan Marks, is troubled by the National School Boards Association interpretation of the ruling. “They are essentially using Endrew F. as justification for trumping the LRE if a school team believes that a student would have greater academic progress in a separate program. Another troubling issue with the National School Board’s reasoning is their assertion that courts should give deference to the school professionals in making such determinations. However, we know that the IDEA gives parents a substantial role in developing their child’s program,” Susan Marks explains.
Special Education Advocates and Attorneys agree if the courts accept this troubling interpretation of Endrew F., parents will find it increasingly more difficult to access an inclusive placement. Still, many are confident the boys with Down syndrome in this case will prevail, because of the evidence that they made meaningful progress in regular education.
What do you think about these cases? Who do you think will prevail and why? Why are we still fighting for inclusion of students with the most significant disabilities? Tell me what you think below.
The answer is Ableism. The research overwhelmingly shows children with disabilities do better academically in the regular classroom even if they have a lower IQ than a child in a resource room. The separate classrooms are shown to be inferior academically,socially,and behaviorally over and over and over again.
Yes, ableism even from those who are supposed to be protecting our children’s rights.
What is interesting to me is a major benefit that is not being taken into consideration by the NSBA – the benefit inclusion provides to students WITHOUT disabilities, and ultimately, the major benefit it leads to when school ends – a more inclusive, accepting, and compassionate society (provided inclusion occurs with sufficient supports/services, of course!)
Yes, very true Christine. I’m saddened that the NSBA interpreted the ruling this way, but not shocked. It’s not the first time this organization has opposed inclusion with proper supports for students with the most significant disabilities.
I think the answe to that question completely depends on the child…we should be as parents arguing for a continuom of services and LRE, There is no research thats SAYS every single child with a disability is better off in an all inclusive setting I have met many children who did better in a self contained room and resource room and or gen ed room and special ed room both, Ive met many kids who have been successful in many kinds settings including those who did horrible in an all inclusive gen ed setting and the parents had to fight like hell to get their child out of full time gen ed in a segtegated setting so they could suceed!!!! The individual child should always guide the team on placement and placement should never be narrowed to only one setting.
Yes, you’re right Kate about the continuum of placement. Federal law states that the continuum starts in the regular classroom. I think the issue is some students don’t get the chance to try the regular classroom and then decide it’s not for them. They’re shut out from that option from the beginning. It’s so true that the individual child should guide placement!
Check out this post I did about research and inclusion. From my understanding there hasn’t been any research studies that show students in a self-contained class receive more of an academic benefit than those in a regular education classroom with supports. https://www.inclusionevolution.com/7-research-studies-can-use-childs-next-iep-meeting-win-fight-inclusion/
I have two autistic children. One has grown to an adult, and the other a second grader. The adult child was tormented in school. She ran away at age 12 for being bullied at school. The kids called her “weird.” By age 17-21 she tried to commit suicide five times. The only people who would be friends with her were the low life druggies. Assimilation into a general education class is not always the best decision. Cramming 1500 kids into one school building and shutting the door turns into “Lord of the Flies”. We need school alternatives for special needs children, when general ed turns into a nightmare!
Thanks for sharing your son’s experience Cindy. Choice should always be an option, but for many students the only option is a self-contained class. Federal law requires the continuum of placement start in the regular classroom with supports. The school district has the burden of proof in proving that the student isn’t making meaningful progress in the regular classroom. I would never say never to any placement for my child (regular classroom, homeschool, private school, etc). But I also believe it’s my child’s right under federal law to be given the chance to try a regular classroom environment FIRST.
As an elementary, special education teacher for 11 years in both self-contained and inclusive settings, I can say that it works both ways.
In my career, have met students that could not participate in the general education classroom with benefits for everyone and I have met teachers that weren’t able to provide a caring, supportive environment for an inclusion class.
For inclusion to work best, it has to be a right fit. It all depends on each situation.
I believe the key to inclusion is “with proper supports”. The demands that are being placed on the students and teachers are increasing and yet the support provided is less and less. I think this is why we’re still fighting.
Inclusion is a beautiful opportunity for all kinds of chances to learn empathy for others and gives all students the ability to learn how to be a helpful partner to others. To learn how the differences of others can be celebrated and accepted in the early years is the best way to avoid bullying later on. Likewise, early intervention for students with any type of academic struggles is also most effective. It is also important to remember that everyone wins in the area of socialization so a combination of some inclusion and some self-contained is very beneficial to students with disabilities as well as for students that are not cognitively delayed.
However, the demands of state testing often ruins the inclusive setting in many ways. I think this is why we’re still fighting!
I am all for high expectations and individualized education for all students but it takes a lot of time and careful planning to make it work well WITHOUT the thought of a state test. I do believe that when you hold the bar high for students, the majority will want to reach for it no matter what their cognitive level. The height of the bar depends on the individual reaching for it. As teachers, we are expected to provide opportunities of success for our students with IEPs while also helping them to make progress and yet we have to turn around and give everyone in inclusion the same state test. The stress of that is what hurts the students, parents and schools. A few years ago, Texas had a test that was more developmentally appropriate for the students found in inclusion and they were able to be more successful. Since the change away from that exam to a “more rigorous” test, I have seen the decline in the benefits of the inclusive setting for about 1/3 of my students.
Teachers need more hands on deck to be able to address individual needs with fidelity. I appreciate that the courts believe school personnel are the experts and I believe if the state requirements were more appropriate everyone would be more comfortable supporting inclusion for all students as was a right fit for that individual.
Jessica, Thank you for this and thank you so much for being a teacher. I was a general education teacher in both an inclusive setting and a setting where students with significant disabilities were sent to a different school. I completely agree with you that teacher support is where it’s at, and the only way students with significant disabilities can be included with typical students. It all comes down to the teacher’s mindset, and the support that teacher receives to help our children. You’re right, inclusion is a beautiful thing.
I feel that another factor is the rate at which the schools are reimbursed. Schools are rarely reimbursed for the actual costs for a SPED student might incur. For many states, the allocations are as much as 5X the funding for a segregated classroom creating a perverse incentive for the school to want to place a child in a segregated settings and/or service. If the school was reimbursed for the services they receive, regardless of where the service occurs based on decisions made by the IEP team – inclusion might become a more preferred model as co-teaching and student tutors and aides would be cheaper for most children. As you noted above, some children may need self-contained classrooms and that is certainly a choice that could be made, but our kids with DS (by the vast majority) do really well with modest classroom support and differentiate teaching (UDL).
This is a post I definitely want to do!