Students with significant disabilities continue to be among the most segregated in schools. In this article, we argue that the principles of least restrictive environment and involvement and progress in the general curriculum have been interpreted in ways that perpetuate segregation, rather than increasing students' access to meaningful curriculum in inclusive educational contexts. We examine this issue from three broad perspectives: federal policy related to least restrictive environment, interpretations of policies related to involvement and progress in the general curriculum, and the implementation of policies related to assessment of grade-level standards. We discuss implications of each of these issues for providing and increasing involvement and progress in general education contexts and content.

Federal law requires all students, including those with significant intellectual disability, to make progress toward grade-level general education standards. The alignment between standards, curriculum, and instruction is vital for ensuring equitable opportunities to learn. Commercially available curricula attempt to support teachers and students by aligning instructional materials to standards, but few studies exist to verify this alignment. Those that have been conducted for general education curriculum have not been promising. This study uses the Links for Academic Learning protocol to evaluate the alignment of curricula designed for students with significant intellectual disability (SWSID) that mark themselves as aligned to grade-level standards. Findings related to the alignment between the standards, lesson objectives, and lesson content are reported. The researchers discuss implications related to the adoption and use of curricula specifically designed for SWSID and the need for additional research in this area.

No abstract

Research has begun to identify the breadth and complexity of contextual variables that impact the opportunities, services, and supports students with complex support needs receive across different classroom placements. Indeed, as research has suggested, placement in and of itself may determine the schooling experiences of these students in ways that can enhance or constrain the outcomes of the educational process. This study examined an array of contextual variables in relation to four types of placement in which students with complex support needs might be placed for educational services by their Individualized Education Program teams. Placements were defined in terms of percent of the school day students had access to age-level general education classes, ranging between no access (separate school) to 80% or higher (“inclusive”). The investigation used surveys completed by a national sample of special and general educators and administrators. Completed surveys were obtained for 117 students with complex support needs across all four types of placement. The findings revealed potential relationships between a number of contextual variables and placement, suggesting that: (a) student opportunities and experiences vary systematically in relation to the amount of access they have to general education classrooms and (b) the application of the Least Restrictive Environment process, with its tacit endorsement of segregated settings and specialized programs, may in fact negatively impact the education of many of these students. Implications of these findings and future research needs are discussed.

No abstract