Educating Students with Mental Retardation in General Education Classrooms

Abstract

Empirical evidence and federal mandates support the notion that students with mental retardation (MR) should spend some or much of the school day in general education classrooms. This study investigated trends in state-level rates for placing students in different educational settings between 1989–90 and 1999–2000. The research utilized state-reported data published in the Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Results indicate that during the 1990s (a) identification rates remained stable, (b) the proportion of students labeled with MR placed in general education classrooms for some or much of the school day increased from 27.3% to 44.7%, (c) placement in separate settings decreased from 72.7% to 55.3%, and (d) the proportion of students with MR placed in separate facilities decreased by 46%. Evidence also suggests that the U.S. has reached a plateau in educating students with MR in general education classrooms. Implications and suggestions for future research are provided.

Are We Moving Toward Educating Students With Disabilities in Less Restrictive Settings?

“…Overall, placements in PO settings declined from a CPR of 36.43 in 1990 to 25.34 in 2007, a decrease of approximately 30%. This inconsistent pattern of placements in PO settings is similar to those in previous research (McLeskey et al, 2004;McLeskey, Henry, & Axelrod, 1999;Williamson et al, 2006), which found that changes in placements in PO settings are more difficult to interpret than changes in GE or SC/SS placements.…”

“…These findings are not surprising, as this was not a substantive change in how settings were defined or how data were reported. Moreover, in spite of concerns regarding the data and changes that have occurred in reporting practices over time, these data are generally viewed as the most reliable and valid national placement data available (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989;McLeskey, Henry, & Hodges, 1999;McLeskey, Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004;Sawyer, McLaughlin, & Winglee, 1994;Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, & Rentz, 2006) and continue to be used to examine the extent to which states are in compliance with the LRE mandate.…”

Availability of and Access to Career Development Activities for Transition-Age Youth With Disabilities

“…We documented substantial differences in the participation of youth with severe disabilities and youth with EBD across almost half of the 20 activities, suggesting that disabilityrelated support needs may represent one salient factor limiting the participation of certain youth. Participation in general education, vocational education, extracurricular and other transition-related activities historically has been especially limited for adolescents with severe disabilities, perhaps more so than any other disability category (Kleinert, Miracle, & Sheppard-Jones, 2007;Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, & Rentz, 2006). Indeed, special educators who serve these youth often identify an array of issues that influence their decisions to limit or promote involvement in school and community activities, such as the nature of students' instructional needs, challenging behaviors, and availability of needed supports (Brozovic, Stafford, Alberto, & Taber, 2000;Trainor, Carter, Owens, & Swedeen, 2008).…”

Learning Disabilities and the LRE Mandate: An Examination of National and State Trends

“…The U.S. Department of Education—Office of Special Education Programs annually collects data from states related to identification rates and placement settings for all students with disabilities. Among other things, these data are used to monitor state compliance with the LRE mandate of IDEA (2004) (i.e., Part B, state reported numbers of students served in particular educational environments or settings), and are widely viewed as the most reliable national placement and identification data (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989; Sawyer, McLaughlin, & Winglee, 1994; Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, & Rentz, 2006).…”