What, Where, and How? Special Education in the Climate of Full Inclusion

Abstract

After the passage of PL 94-142 in 1975 guaranteeing a free, appropriate, public education to all students with disabilities, multiple reauthorizations of IDEA have refined, revised, and renewed the nation's moral and pedagogical commitment to providing well-planned, public, inclusive, and appropriate education to all students with disabilities. But conflicting views of where that education should take place, what that education should consist of, and how that education should be delivered have continued to plague the field of special education. In this article, we provide an historical perspective on the arguments over where, what and how. We open four “windows” on special education service delivery in four different settings in Pennsylvania to illustrate contemporary interpretations and contemporary public policy related to where, what, and how. In the end, we raise questions about whether current, fully inclusive special education practices fulfill the promise of PL-94-142 to provide a special and appropriate education to students with disabilities.

Notes

1. The inclusion mandate stemmed from a 2005 settlement of the Gaskin v. Pennsylvania Department of Education case. The settlement is the resolution of a 1994 class-action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Education on behalf of a group of children with disabilities. It requires, among other things, that Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams determine whether the goals in a student's IEP can be implemented in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services before considering a more restrictive educational placement.