Education EDU 503 Assignment 1
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919893053
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2020, Vol. 45(1) 28 –33 © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1540796919893053
rpsd.sagepub.com
Commentary
Why Some Students with Severe Disabilities Are Not Placed in General Education
James M. Kauffman1 , Jason C. Travers2, and Jeanmarie Badar3
Abstract We acknowledge that some students with severe disabilities are not being taught in general education. We do not agree that inclusion in general education is inherently better, nor do we think it is always appropriate, and we provide some reasons that a full continuum of alternative placements is not only legally mandated but appropriate. We are supportive of placement in general education for children with severe disabilities when it is appropriate.
Keywords inclusion, least restrictive environment, continuum of alternative placements, Individualized Education Program, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
We were first struck by the implications of the main title of the article by Agran et al. (2020). The title mis- represents reality in two ways. First, some students with severe disabilities are placed in general education classrooms. The title suggests that none—at least virtually none—are now. Second, severe disabilities are characterized by combinations of disabilities that cause significant impairments. Although we believe any category of disability can be considered severe, we believe the population to which Agran et al. (2020) refer is a diverse population of individuals who will require extensive or pervasive lifelong supports due to sig- nificant intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, or multiple physical disabilities with significant intellectual disability. Given this ambiguity, we can only suppose the meaning of Agran et al.’s (2020) title. Perhaps the title implies different questions such as the following: Why Aren’t All Students . . .? Why Are Only Some . . .? Why Aren’t More Students . . .? or Why Should Any Student Not Be Placed . . .? Surely, the title would be inaccurate and misrepresent reality if it were to ask, Why Aren’t ANY Students . . .?
Reasons for Placement
One reason we think the issue of inclusion is contentious is that placement is, by current law, a judgment call of professionals, family members, and the individual with severe disability (when appropriate) that
1University of Virginia, Afton, USA 2University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA 3Private School Teacher, Charlottesville, VA, USA*
*The school forbids the use of its name in any publication.
Corresponding Author: James M. Kauffman, University of Virginia, 417 Stagecoach Road, Afton, VA 22920, USA. Email: jmk9t@virginia.edu
893053 RPSXXX10.1177/1540796919893053Research and Practice for Persons with Severe DisabilitiesKauffman et al. research-article2019
Kauffman et al. 29
involves an array of options. That is, current law prohibits placement as a foregone and predetermined deci- sion, or something requiring no deliberation (Crockett, in press).
We try to explain succinctly why some students with severe disabilities are not placed in general education classrooms and, in doing so, comment on some of the statements by Agran et al. (2020). Our perspectives reflect an understanding that some students need to be taught skills that others do not, typically because other students learned them long ago. Our comments also reflect our belief that some skills are more fundamental than those required by the general education curriculum, and sometimes these skills involve such things as functional communication, self-care, mobility, and others that can only be related to the general education curriculum in the most tangential way, irrespective of student age. We argue that an appropriate education for students with severe disabilities fundamentally requires effective instruction, which often implies intensive interventions with very high opportunities to respond, not needed by most students. We believe the differ- ences in what students with severe disabilities need to learn (i.e., the curriculum) and the intensity of instruc- tional interventions necessary to ensure an appropriate education explain why some students with severe disabilities are not being placed in general education classrooms. Although the title of Agran et al. (2020) implies Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams often make poor placement decisions, we suspect IEP team members very often recognize the fundamental differences in curriculum and instruction and make individualized decisions about how to best serve students with severe disabilities.
We agree there exists evidence that some students with severe disabilities can learn advanced, abstract content consistent with the general education curriculum. However, we do not agree that the general educa- tion curriculum is a prescription for a better quality of life for all students, and it certainly does not consti- tute an appropriate education for all individuals. It is true that some students with severe physical disabilities have intellectual skills that allow them to learn at a satisfactory or even advanced rate and level with general education instruction or the co-teaching or assistance of a special educator, but some do not. A specialized education is one that provides a scope and sequence of instruction that aligns with the vision of the student’s future. The general education curriculum may or may not be consistent with that vision, but we suspect most students with severe disabilities need a curriculum that reflects their unique needs for realizing that vision. Perhaps we might be called naïve (or worse) to presume that an education comprised primarily (or exclusively) of general education curricular goals is unlikely to benefit some students with severe disabili- ties (cf. Courtade et al., 2012). Nonetheless, we believe that some students with severe disabilities are not being placed in general education classrooms because their individualized scope and intensity of instruction differs significantly from the general education curriculum and instruction.
We suspect that most students with severe disabilities do not learn skills relevant to their future via mere exposure to the general education curriculum in a general education classroom. They very likely require intensive, systematic, and explicit instruction, which they are quite unlikely to receive in the general educa- tion classroom. Some may argue for changes to ensure that general education instruction is evidence-based, and we would agree. But we do not believe including students with severe disabilities should be the impetus for motivating such change. Rather, students with severe disabilities who need specialized instruction should receive it wherever it is most effective. Sometimes, the location of instruction is necessarily a spe- cialized setting where it is more effective. Consider a case in point involving specialized, separate instruc- tion compared to instruction in general education classes (Fuchs et al., 2014). Fourth graders with severe learning disabilities taught fractions performed significantly better with instruction provided in specialized settings when compared with instruction in general education classrooms. Some students with severe dis- abilities may therefore not be placed in general education classrooms because such environments provide inadequate or wholly ineffective instruction.
Our experience as teachers suggests to us that teachers’ time and energy are limited, not boundless. Professional limitations prevent special educators from providing the optimum attention to and effective instruction for students with disabilities in the general education classroom. The professional limitations are especially pronounced when a student’s disability is severe insofar as learning the general education cur- riculum is concerned (see Gerber & Semmel, 1985, for relevant analyses). Moreover, Travers et al. (in press) described how instruction in general education classrooms can be undignified, humiliating, and embarrassing for some students with severe disabilities and their classroom peers. We suppose that the
30 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 45(1)
matter of placement sometimes depends on what the IEP team considered more (or most) important and relevant for advancing toward the vision of the student’s future—physical proximity during instruction to students without disabilities (and the incidental learning that might occur) or more effective instruction of the student in a specialized setting. Perhaps some IEP teams decide corporeal inclusion is important and relevant for the student’s future, whereas other IEP teams prioritize access to the most effective possible instruction. We see nothing wrong with individualized approaches to decision-making, even if they result in only some students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms.
We note that a separate place for instruction does not mean separation for every school (or life) activity. Recall Agran et al. (2020) asked why aren’t (more or all?) students with severe disabilities placed in general education classrooms. Many special educators serve students with severe disabilities whose education- related needs are largely consistent with a specialized or self-contained classroom, but who still spend some substantial portion of their day participating in general education environments (e.g., lunch, physical educa- tion, art, electives, and extra-curricular activities.). And some portion of those students may also be receiving specialized instruction in general education curriculum content in general education classrooms. Schools are often viewed as a product of society’s primary (though not exclusive) concern for academic learning, but this does not mean that corporeal inclusion is the most important outcome (Kauffman and Badar, in press). Some believe, metaphorically, that we can have our cake and eat it, too—that we need not choose between location of instruction and effectiveness of instruction. We believe Agran et al. (2020) overlook the important point that some students with severe disabilities have access and benefit from—to differing degrees based on indi- vidual needs—general education environments, including the general education classroom.
We believe the law and the scientific evidence justifies the placement of some students with severe dis- abilities in general education classrooms. We do not believe the law or evidence justifies a quantity, quota, or student profile that justifies advanced and universally applied decisions about placement of students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Of course, one’s personal experience, including our own, can color interpretations of the law and scientific evidence in ways that are misleading. Science and logic are not perfect, but they seem to be better tools than personal testimony. The science of anything is tricky. Science sometimes shows ideas to be wrong or, usually, why something is so or how something appears to work, but only under certain conditions. Science sometimes makes what we thought impossible possible, although we leave the conclusion that “all things are possible” to those who believe in the super- natural. Scientific data do not speak for themselves, and different interpretations of a given data set are possible. It is sometimes difficult for scientists to recognize and control their biases, and to avoid cherry- picking data to justify beliefs. The imperfected craft of science and the imperfections of scientists require independent verification of claims. Eventually, usually through the process of replication, a scientific con- sensus emerges, but some believers think the majority of scientists are wrong or lying (consider, for exam- ple, the antivaxers of today, climate change deniers, and flat earthers; Specter, 2009). Deniers attempt to undermine a scientific consensus by appealing to scientific uncertainty and citing the findings of rogues or the findings of outliers in the scientific community. When the evidence is inadequate or equivocal and no consensus is achieved, advocates may decry the conservative nature of science and criticize scientists for failing to commit rather than acknowledging ignorance. Then, too, people may claim with insufficient evi- dence that a given scientific matter is settled or supports a particular position when it is not or does not. By repeating the conclusion with sufficient emphasis and duplication, others may become convinced the claim is not only true, but represents a scientific consensus. To our knowledge, the scientific literature simply does not support the claim of evidence clearly supporting placement of students with severe disabilities in gen- eral education as superior (Cook and Cook, in press).
We agree with Agran et al. (2020) that context matters, but we do not agree that the scientific evidence justifies claims that general education classrooms are inherently superior for students with severe disabili- ties. Perhaps more concerning in their appeal to insufficient evidence is the implicit assumption that fami- lies and professionals with intimate knowledge about the individual student apparently know less about what is good for a particular student with severe disabilities than researchers who have never met the child or IEP team members. IEP teams likely work hard to include students with severe disabilities in various, albeit limited, portions of the day. IEP team members may agree to include a student with severe disabilities
Kauffman et al. 31
in some general education environments while recognizing general education classrooms as insufficient or entirely ineffective for a particular individual. Teams also know more about the personal preferences, inter- ests, and strengths of the individual, and often parents are concerned about the dignity of the learner. But research, the science of instruction, and analysis of advocates’ decision-making simply do not support Agran et al.’s (2020) assertion that more students with severe disabilities should be placed in general educa- tion classrooms (Cook and Cook, in press; Cooper et al., in press; Gerber & Semmel, 1985; Travers et al., in press; see also Hornby, 2014; Imray & Colley, 2017).
Other Conceptual Issues
Special education is, indeed, a service and not a place. Place and service have different meanings, and one word cannot be substituted for the other in any debate. The crafters of the 1975 law now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) understood this. They understood that some places are more conducive to effective specialized instruction for some students and some tasks than are others. They knew the difference between place and instruction and acknowledged concerns from parents, professionals, and individuals with disabilities about unilateral decisions and confinement of spe- cial education services to a single place. Moreover, they understood that some students need to learn things that other students do not, that the general education curriculum may be good for most students but trivial or even totally irrelevant for some students.
If we have learned anything from the history of treatment of disability, it is that place itself teaches noth- ing, is not a reliable predictor of instruction, and is no guarantee of instruction. “Being there” and being exposed to instruction is not and never has been a reasonable measure of or a guarantee of instruction. Place is not a part of instruction, except that an ecological niche may shape behavior (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1997). Place can make effective and appropriate instruction more likely or less, more feasible or less, and easier or harder for teacher fidelity of implementation. Place also limits what can be taught. Suggesting that place is a part of (or more important than) instruction harkens back to special schools and classes as norma- tive placements where location dictated what was taught. The last sentence of Agran et al. (2020) reinforces the idea that to be most effective, instruction must occur in a given environment, in this case in general education. This is quite like saying that effective instruction must occur in a special class or school or insti- tution, although it is an inverted (reversed) insistence that place is the key, merely substituting general education for other places. We find the idea of arbitrary placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms a profoundly regressive and discredited idea. We also suspect such approaches are rejected by the majority of IEP teams, and that rejection might explain why some students with severe dis- abilities are not placed in general education classrooms.
People often are tempted to take a proposition of law, policy, idea, or behavior to an extreme that is counterproductive, and some yield to that temptation (cf. Kauffman & Badar, 2018; Sunstein, 2009). Their yielding tells an old, sad story. Examples include various political philosophies, systematic institutionaliza- tion, unsystematic deinstitutionalization, zero tolerance discipline policies, and prohibition. The temptation appears to be a part of some current controversies (e.g., gun control, abortion, and full inclusion of students with disabilities in general education). Extreme arguments propose to prohibit or very severely limit choice, lacking nuance and favoring an absolute rule to be applied in all cases (Kauffman et al., in press). In our opinion, former president of TASH, Laski (1991) exemplified such an extreme nearly 30 years ago when he wrote the following:
Three generations of children subject to LRE [least restrictive environment, implying three or more options] are enough [three generations would, we suppose, approximate 60 years; where Laski got this span of time we do not know]. Just as some institution managers and their organizations—both overt and covert—seek refuge in the continuum [continuum of alternative places, CAP, not a continuum of services] and LRE, regional, intermediate unit, and special school administrators and their organizations will continue to defend the traditional and professionally pliable notion of LRE [ply characterizes any rule that is not rigid]. The continuum is real and represents the status quo. However, the morass created by it can be avoided in the design and implementation of
32 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 45(1)
reformed systems by focusing all placement decisions on the local school and routinely insisting on the home school as an absolute and universal requirement. In terms of placement, the home-school focus renders LRE irrelevant and the continuum moot. (Laski, 1991, p. 413)
LRE is (a) rendered irrelevant and (b) the continuum is moot only when (a) a single environment is consid- ered least restrictive in all cases and (b) there is no continuum and no choice of alternative environments—just one place. Choices make errors and injustices possible, but choices do not make either error or injustice certain in any given case. In many of life’s circumstances, if not in most (and certainly in the matter of educational inclusion), lack of choice ensures horrible and unjust treatment in at least some cases and, potentially, in many. That is why PL 94-142 (now IDEA, 2004) has since 1975 required both LRE and CAP. Perhaps 30 years later, Laski would temper the assertion that all children should be in inclusive settings. We hope so, but we are not optimistic about changing the mind of any devoted believer. Our own minds are open to change by rational argument and interpretation of scientific evidence.
Concluding Comment
We are left wondering just what the point or subtext of the Agran et al.’s (2020) article might be. We suspect, reading their final paragraph, that they agree with Laski’s statement, as quoted above. We hope they do not believe that all students with severe disabilities should be placed in general education classrooms, that none should ever be taught elsewhere, or that truly effective instruction can always be provided in and should be researched only if it can be delivered in a general education classroom. We support the placement of stu- dents with severe disabilities in general education classrooms in all cases where IEP teams agree that it facilitates advancement toward a vision of the student’s future, ensures relevant curriculum is taught using the most effective instruction, and will not undermine the privacy or dignity of the student.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
James M. Kauffman https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7327-3526
References
Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., Zagona, A., Fitzpatrick, H., & Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms? Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45, 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134.
Cook, B., & Cook, L. (in press). An examination of highly-cited research on inclusion. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.), On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives. Routledge.
Cooper, J. T., Scott, T. M., & Whitney, T. (in press). A science of instruction and its implications for students with disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.), On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues and international per- spectives. Routledge.
Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(1), 3-13.
Crockett, J. B. (in press). Inclusion as idea and its justification in law. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.), On educational inclu- sion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives. Routledge.
Kauffman et al. 33
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., & Jordan, N. C. (2014). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge? Exceptional Children, 81(2), 134-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551743
Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1985). The microeconomics of referral and reintegration: A paradigm for evaluation of special education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11(1), 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(85)90030-6
Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and dis- abilities. Springer.
Imray, P., & Colley, A. (2017). Inclusion is dead: Long live inclusion. Routledge. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/
idea?src=policy-page Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Felder, M., & Hallenbeck, B. A. (in press). Special education
policy prospects: Lessons from social policies past. Exceptionality. Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2018). Extremism and disability chic. Exceptionality, 26(1), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.1
080/09362835.2017.1283632 Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (in press). Definitions and other issues. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.), On educational inclu-
sion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives. Routledge. Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1997). A diversity of restrictive environments: Placement as a problem of social
ecology. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 325-342). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laski, F. J. (1991). Achieving integration during the second revolution. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 409-421). Paul H. Brookes.
Specter, M. (2009). Denialism: How irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives. Penguin.
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford University Press. Travers, J. C., Forbes, H., Johnson, J. V., & Ayres, K. (in press). Inclusion and students with severe, sensory, and mul-
tiple impairments. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.), On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives. Routledge.
Author Biographies
James M. Kauffman is a professor emeritus of education at the University of Virginia. His primary areas of research and writing have been emotional and behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. Jason C. Travers is an associate professor of special education at the University of Kansas. He primarily researches the education and treatment of learners with autism spectrum disorders as well as meta-scientific issues in evidence- based special education. Jeanmarie Badar taught special education for 25 years and has experience in both special and inclusionary classrooms. She now teaches second grade in general education and has a student diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in her class.
Date Received: November 4, 2019 Date of Final Acceptance: November 15, 2019 Editor-in-Charge: Stacy K. Dymond
Copyright of Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.