Placement decisions for students with severe disabilities have often been based less on the students’ unique learning needs but more on beliefs and presumptions about student learning, entrenched school district policies that restrict program delivery options, and other variables unrelated to student needs. In light of the benefits associated with inclusive practices for students with severe disabilities, this article examines the foregoing factors to better understand how they affect placement decisions and to identify barriers to implementing at a national level more inclusive placements. The article also addresses systems change solutions, and several new federally funded initiatives that could contribute to authentic changes in placement practices.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data that states and U.S. territories report from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and discuss the status of the most restrictive special education placement settings for students with disabilities. In this analysis, we found that (a) states do not set rigorous improvement goals to reduce restrictive placements, (b) the percentage of students with disabilities placed in restrictive placements have remained essentially unchanged over the past decade, and (c) students with low-incidence (severe) disabilities are disproportionally placed in restrictive placements. These results suggest that segregated educational experiences continue for thousands of students with disabilities in spite of evidence that shows that opportunities to learn and develop are enhanced in more inclusive educational settings.

The purpose of this study is to describe the educational programs for adolescents with autism (ages 12-16 years) in inclusion and non-inclusion settings as reflected in their Individual Education Plan (IEP) goals, services, and curricular adaptations. Students who were included in general education math and language arts instruction had fewer overall IEP goals, but goals focused more on applied skill development, whereas students in noninclusion had goals addressing primarily rote and procedural skills. For students in both groups, all IEP goals were derived from Kindergarten through fourth grade standards. Likewise, for students in both groups, most IEP goals addressed core symptoms of autism (e.g. communication skills) as opposed to academic skill development, along with fewer overall goals and more curricular adaptations as students entered adolescence. Implications for practitioners are discussed.

Using the least restrictive environments (LRE) data from annual Reports to Congress, this study examined national trends in placement between 2000-2014 for school-aged students considered to have significant disabilities from among the categories of autism (ASD), intellectual disability (ID), multiple disabilities (MD), and deaf-blindness (DB). Educational placement trends were calculated using a log ratio index, and students with significant disabilities were compared to groups of students from the other disability groups. Results confirmed that access to general education settings is lacking for this group of students. Implications for policies and practices as well as suggested future research are provided. Examining National Trends in Educational Settings for Students with Significant Disabilities Trends in where students with disabilities are educated using data associated with the least restrictive environment (LRE) have been tracked for more than three decades. Existing research documents a steady increase in the percentage of time spent in general education classrooms for students with high incidence disabilities, including learning disabilities, other health impairments, and emotional behavioral disorders (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989; McLeskey, Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004). Recently, McLeskey and colleagues (2012) examined the 1990-2008 LRE data, finding a 93% increase of students with high-incidence disabilities placed in general education 80% or more of the day. In another study, Williamson, McLeskey, and Rentz (2006) examined LRE data for students with intellectual disability (ID) during the decade from 1990-2000 and found increasing trends, albeit less substantial than for other disability groups. In addition, they noted that increased rates appeared to plateau between 1997-2000, indicating a dropping off of general education placement after initial growth. An interesting finding in their study was the variability across states, which has also been documented in other studies for students with ID (Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Archwmety, 2002), and autism (Kurth, 2014). Further, Brock and Schaefer (2015) identified a single state's differences in educational placement for students with significant disabilities, suggesting urban and urban-fringe districts were least likely to place students in general education 80% or more of the day. Broadly speaking, continued improvements for students with high-incidence disabilities toward greater access to general education have been found. However, the extent to which this holds true for students with significant disabilities (i.e., intellectual disability, autism, multiple disabilities, deaf blindness) has not been thoroughly examined. The IDEA mandates accountability requirements focus on ensuring that students with disabilities participate in the general education curriculum. The LRE regulations stipulate to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled, and that their removal from general education occ...

This study investigated educational experiences for students with significant cognitive disability (SCD) taught in self-contained high school classrooms. Nineteen students and nine teachers across five high schools and four school districts participated. A time-sampling method was used to describe the ecological, teacher, and student behaviors of these classrooms. Field notes were collected and analyzed as well. Results revealed that students in these classrooms were often passively engaged and had few opportunities to learn from rigorous curriculum. Instructors engaged in few practices known to be effective in supporting the learning of students with SCD. Finally, the classrooms themselves were often distracting and demonstrated little evidence of specialized or effective instruction. Implications for teaching and research are included.