FREE ESSAY ON LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

Least Restrictive Environment!
Judd O. Fisher
Although the ideas and reasons for inclusive education are very noble and
can have a positive effect on many disabled students, mandating inclusion for all
disabled students denies some the opportunity to appropriately learn in the least
restrictive environment (LRE) as required by law. The fight for inclusive education
has made enormous gains from when the National Association of Retarded
Children was established in 1950 to 1990 when the public law called the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), P.L. 94-142, was revised. Educational
systems have moved from not providing education at all for the disabled to
providing schools for the disabled separate from non-disabled students. Recently
normal schools have been practicing inclusion and have free rein to determine
exactly how. The problem facing policy makers today is whether or not all disabled
children should be inclusioned. If the policy makers would just observe the disabled
students being inclusioned and ignore all the rhetoric being presented to them, they
will find that not all disabled children benefit from inclusion.
On July 13,1996, Omer Zak compiled several articles the deaf and
professionals who work with the deaf had submitted to him and presented them on
the Internet under the title Deaf Persons and Experts Speak Out Against Inclusion. 
One of the writings submitted was entitled Interpreter Isn't Enough! written by
Leah Hager Cohen. The author is an interpreter for an eleventh grade deaf student
that is being inclusioned in a regular school. Cohen explains how the deaf student
will sit quietly by herself before class begins while the rest of the students are
socializing and interacting with each other. The piece goes on to explain how the
deaf student must look at the interpreter during class in order to receive the lesson
being presented by the teacher. When the student looks takes her eyes off the
interpreter to write in her notes the interpreter must stop signing. When the student
looks back to the interpreter she begins signing again. The more often the student
stops to write in her notes the farther behind the teacher the interpreter gets. As the
interpreter falls behind she must try to catch up causing a loss of information. If the
teacher adds a visual aid such as a map or a chart, the student must concentrate on
three things causing her to fall even farther behind. The deaf student rarely has the
opportunity to be the one to answer a question asked by the teacher due to the delay
caused by using an interpreter. Before the interpreter even gets the question signed
another student has answered it. Cohen also explains that while a teacher will ask
her how the student is doing many teachers will decline an invitation to ask the
student herself via the interpreter. That declination has a tendency to alienate the
deaf student even more.
Joe Murray also contributed an article to Zak. Murray is a deaf person who
was fully inclusioned throughout his academic career up and including college. 
Murray was by most standards a very successful student. He participated in sports
and other extra curricular activities along with going to Europe as an exchange
student. Murray explains how in the mist of all his success he felt he was not living
up to his potential and could not do so out side the deaf community. Murray had to
make a concentrated effort at everything he did where as if he was in an
environment with his deaf peers the flow of information and activity would have
happened more naturally.
One of the biggest argument supporters of full inclusion try to present is the
fact that disabled students and non-disabled students will have the opportunity to
socially interact with each other. It is hoped that this interaction will break down
the prejudices and misconceptions people have about the disabled. In the case of a
deaf student the opposite holds true. In a school for the deaf the students can
communicate and interact freely without any restrictions. When a deaf child is
placed in a school for the hearing that child is isolated from the rest of her
classmates. In order for successful learning to take place a student must feel valued
and comfortable in the classroom (Ormrod). If a deaf child is isolated from her
classmates due to the lack of communication she will never gain the feeling of being
valued or comfortable.
The information processing abilities of students must be taken into
consideration when placing them in any academic situation. Students need time to
be able to think about and draw conclusions on what is being taught (Ormrod). If a
deaf student and her interpreter are having problems keeping up with the classroom
instruction the deaf student will miss the opportunities given by the teacher to
properly think about and process the information and grasp the true concepts of the
lesson. By not having the opportunity to perform the information processing stage
of classroom instruction the deaf students rights to learn in the least restrictive
environment as stated in P.L. 94-142, are clearly being violated. If the teacher does
slow the pace of instruction down in order to allow the deaf student to keep up,
others in the class will become bored and loose interest which infringes on their right
to learn in the least restrictive environment.
As mentioned above, the rights of the non-disabled student can be violated by
having students with certain disabilities in a normal classroom session. For
example, a severely autistic child can be very difficult to control and can quickly turn
a classroom into a chaotic mess (Mejia). Autistic children need to have a structured
environment with very little disturbances. When a disturbance does occur such as
an announcement over the P.A. system or a fire drill the autistic child will most
often experience a form of a panic attack and causing them to become very
disruptive and difficult to manage. As a result, valuable lesson time is wasted on
calming the autistic child down. This is not only disturbing to the other students in
the classroom but can be dangerous to them as well. An autistic child will often get
violent during an tantrum and may throw something or do something that will
injure other students. If a tantrum occurs during a fire alarm the autistic child could
prevent the rest of the class from safely exiting the building.
The infringement on regular students rights does not stop with a possible
disturbance in the classroom. In February of 1995 a behavior disordered (BD)
student who was being fully inclusioned was convicted of the rape and murder of
one of his classmates (Schlafly). The BD student used to be part of a supervised
program in the most controlled environment for BD students. As a result of the new
policy at McCluer North High School about full inclusion, the BD student was
transferred into a regular classroom setting. Shortly after his transfer he raped and
murdered a 15 year-old freshman named Christine Smetzer.
Are the average American students being overlooked in this whole process of
inclusion? One quick look at the change in public school budgets will answer that
question. In 1967 at least 80% of public school budgets where devoted to regular
education while in 1996 that percentage rate dropped to 58.6% (Ratnesar). The
22% decrease is a result of absorbing the cost for special education and inclusion. 
The extra attention given to a severely disabled child that is inclusioned into a
regular classroom is drawing away the resources and efforts of the teachers that
would normally be directed to the average student. What a waste of precious
resources when a child's disability is so severe that they can not truly benefit from
inclusion.
Supporters of full inclusion claim that the biggest obstacle they face is the
attitudes of those involved (Mejia). There are schools that are very successful at
applying inclusion practices. What enabled the success of these schools was the
attitudes of the staff. Likewise, many of the failures of inclusion can be attributed to
poor attitudes. Tim McConnell has been quoted for saying the key to successful
inclusion is deciding to make inclusion successful. When administrators change
their negative attitudes toward inclusion and begin to follow the proper procedures
for implementing inclusion it will be successful. By law an individualized education
program (IEP) must be developed for each student that has been identified as having
a disability. If a specialist is required by the IEP than one must be provided for the
student. Had this policy been properly implemented in the past maybe students such
as Joe Murray would have felt as if he was achieving his full potential. If a proper
staff was assigned to Michael Taylor would that have been enough to prevent the
rape and murder of Christine Smetzer? There is no definite answer to the above
question but supporters of full inclusion would have you believe that yes these
things could have been prevented if inclusion was implemented properly. When
proper implementation of inclusion occurs more positive examples will come forth. 
The more positive examples that are presented the more apt people are to take a
positive attitude toward full inclusion enabling for more and more successful
inclusion programs.
Those who support inclusion for the deaf claim the average sixteen year
old-deaf student can only read at the level of a hearing eight year-old (The
Disabled). If a deaf student can be placed in a regular classroom setting early in his
education and given the proper support there should be no reason why he could not
read and write at the same level of his hearing peers. Deaf children growing up in
segregated schools are most often taught American Sign Language (ASL). ASL is
an entirely different language than English just as Spanish or French is. The
problem is that if the deaf person lives in America everything from instructions to
the closed captions on TV are written in English and not in ASL. Teaching the deaf
to read and write proper English will help them to function in the community more
freely. The same holds true with autistic children as well. Teach them young
enough how to function in a normal classroom setting and they will behave
accordingly.
According to the Authors of Listening To Their Voices inclusive practices
benefit the average student as well. The book provides a reliable chart of how much
is learned in different situations. The chart states that people learn:
10% of what they read 20% of what they hear
30% of what they see 50% of what they see & hear
70% of what they discuss w/others 80%of what they experience
95% of what they teach others
Non disabled students who have disabled students participating in their classes have
the opportunity to help the disabled student learn. As a result the non disabled
student has a higher chance of retaining what is being taught. A teacher can still
teach a lesson if the learning goals of the students in the class vary. It is the
variance
that allows students to help other students creating an atmosphere for more positive
learning.
The question still remains as to whether or not inclusion should be practiced
as full inclusion. The answer is quite simple really, follow the law! Learning must
take place in the least restrictive environment. In order to adhere to that section of
the law both segregated schools and non-segregated schools must be made available
to the disabled. Then the due process of the law must be followed. Each individual
that is suspected to have a disability must be evaluated by fair and impartial hearing
conducted by a multidisciplinary team. These teams consist of the parents, the
regular classroom teacher, one or more specialist and the school principal. It is at
this time that parents can determine if they feel their child would benefit from
regular classroom instruction or segregated classroom instruction.
Where the law gets fuzzy is if inclusion should be mandated or not. Logic
should dictate in this situation and recognize that the parents are ultimately
responsible for the education their child receives. Therefore the parents should have
the right to research the school their child would be attending and make a
determination as to whether or not that school can meet their child's needs. If the
parents feel that their child would be better served in a segregated school where the
instruction is geared solely toward that child's disability, then that school should be
available to that child and her /his parents.
Works Cited
Zak, Omer. "Deaf Persons and Experts Speak Out Against Inclusion." 13 Jul. 
1996. Internet posting. 3 Oct. 1998. Available WWW: htp://www.weiz
mann.ac.il/deaf-info/inclusion.html.
Cohen, Leah Hager. "Interpreter Isn't Enough!." The New York Times. 22 Feb.
1994. "Deaf Persons and Experts Speak Out Against Inclusion." 13 Jul. 
1996. Internet posting. 3 Oct. 1998. Available WWW: htp://www.weiz
mann.ac.il/deaf-info/inclusion.html.
Murray, Joe. "Mainstreaming Leads to Isolation - a Testimonial. 27 Feb. 1995
"Deaf Persons and Experts Speak Out Against Inclusion." 13 Jul. 
1996. Internet posting. 3 Oct. 1998. Available WWW: htp://www.weiz
mann.ac.il/deaf-info/inclusion.html.
Ormrod, Jeanne Ellis. Educational Psychology : Developing Learners. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1995.
Mejia, Tammy. Personal interview. 6 Oct. 1998.
Schlafly, Phyllis. "Full Inclusion Student is Convicted of Murder." Education
Reporter. May 1998
Ratnesar, Romesh. "Lost in the Middle." Time 14 Sep. 1998: 60 - 64.
The Disabled. Greenhaven Press, 1997
Grosel, Laura, et al. "Listen to Their Voices." Thes. Ashland College, 1997.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Zak, Omer. "Deaf Persons and Experts Speak Out Against Inclusion." 13 Jul. 
1996. Internet posting. 3 Oct. 1998. Available WWW: htp://www.weiz
mann.ac.il/deaf-info/inclusion.html.
Cohen, Leah Hager. "Interpreter Isn't Enough!." The New York Times. 22 Feb.
1994. "Deaf Persons and Experts Speak Out Against Inclusion." 13 Jul. 
1996. Internet posting. 3 Oct. 1998. Available WWW: htp://www.weiz
mann.ac.il/deaf-info/inclusion.html.
Murray, Joe. "Mainstreaming Leads to Isolation - a Testimonial. 27 Feb. 1995
"Deaf Persons and Experts Speak Out Against Inclusion." 13 Jul. 
1996. Internet posting. 3 Oct. 1998. Available WWW: htp://www.weiz
mann.ac.il/deaf-info/inclusion.html.
Ormrod, Jeanne Ellis. Educational Psychology : Developing Learners. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1995.
Mejia, Tammy. Personal interview. 6 Oct. 1998.
Schlafly, Phyllis. "Full Inclusion Student is Convicted of Murder." Education
Reporter. May 1998
Ratnesar, Romesh. "Lost in the Middle." Time 14 Sep. 1998: 60 - 64.
The Disabled. Greenhaven Press, 1997
Grosel, Laura, et al. "Listen to Their Voices." Thes. Ashland College, 1997.