Educating Students With Mental Retardation in General Education Classrooms

Pamela Williamson, James McLeskey, David Hoppey, Tarcha Rentz. Exceptional Children. Reston: Spring 2006.Vol.72, Iss. 3; pg. 347, 15 pgs

Jump to full text Translate document into: More Like This - Find similar documents
Subjects: Author(s): Document types: Document features: Publication title: Source type: ISSN: ProQuest document ID: Text Word Count Document URL: Mental retardation, Disabled people, Education policy, Special education Pamela Williamson, James McLeskey, David Hoppey, Tarcha Rentz Feature References, Tables, Graphs Exceptional Children. Reston: Spring 2006. Vol. 72, Iss. 3; pg. 347, 15 pgs Periodical 00144029 995753461 7217 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=995753461&Fmt=4&clientId=17986&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Select language

Abstract (Document Summary)

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. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Full Text (7217 words)

Copyright Council for Exceptional Children Spring 2006

[Headnote] 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 19992000. 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.

Prior to the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Pub. L. No. 94-142) in 1975, more than half of all students with disabilities were receiving no educational services (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002). It is disturbing to note that students with mental retardation (MR) during this time period were often "relegated to sterile, dehumanizing institutions" (The Arc, 2002). Although the movement to deinstitutionalize persons with MR has enabled these individuals to live their lives in homes and neighborhoods instead of institutions, students identified as MR are still often educated within separate classrooms and settings (Polloway, Patton, Smith, & Buck, 1997). In 1992 and again in 1995, The Arc, a national organization that serves as an advocacy group for people with mental retardation and other intellectual impairments, issued a Report to the Nation on Inclusion of Students With Mental Retardation challenging government and advocacy organizations to achieve full inclusion for students with mental retardation by the year 2000 (The Arc, 1995; Davis, 1992). The Arc (1995) borrowed from Lipsky and Gartner's (1994) definition of full inclusion defining it as the provision of services to students with disabilities, including those with severe disabilities, in their neighborhood schools, in age-appropriate regular education classes, with the necessary support services and supplementary aids-for both children and teachers. The goal of inclusion is to prepare students to participate as full and contributing members of society. Inclusion means meeting the law's requirement of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. (p. 36) Historically, where students with MR have been educated has been influenced by several factors including (a) placement efficacy research, (b) legal mandates, (c) judicial interpretations, and (d) the changing definition of the construct of MR. Each of these factors is reviewed here briefly. LRE EFFICACY RESEARCH Separate classes for students with MR have existed for more than 100 years (Johnson, 1962). These classes have typically included only students labeled with MR, and have been based on the assumptions that these students are more successfully educated together, by a teacher with specialized skills, and in a setting that is largely segregated from typical peers. For more than 70 years, the effectiveness of these segregated placements has been questioned (Bennett, 1932 cited in Johnson, 1962; Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Dunn, 1968; Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Johnson, 1962; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Polloway, 1984). In a historical review of the literature, Polloway noted that during the 1950s and into the mid-1960s much research was devoted to determining where students with MR were best served-in general education or special class programs. Studies during this time which evaluated academic achievement outcomes either had insignificant findings or favored placement in general education classrooms over separate classes, whereas studies that evaluated social outcomes had mixed results, some favoring general education class placement and others favoring special class placement. Thus, the only unequivocal conclusion that could be drawn from this research was that all of the studies had methodological weaknesses to the extent that generalizing conclusions from this body of work was problematic at best (Polloway). More recently, Freeman and Alkin (2000) reviewed the available research regarding the effectiveness of separate class placement for students with MR. They concluded that "children with milder mental levels of retardation achieve more positive results in the integrated classroom than do their counterparts in the segregated classroom" (p. 15). They further noted that the placement of students "with mental retardation in general education classrooms tends to improve their social skills and competence" (p. 15). Research related to students with more severe MR is somewhat less clear. Freeman and Alkin found mixed results from the research on academic outcomes for students with more severe mental retardation who were educated in general education classrooms. However, in contrast to these results, Freeman and Alkin found that general education classroom placements tended to improve social outcomes for students with severe mental retardation. Others have reached a similar conclusion (Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997; Mu, Siegel, & Allinder, 2000). Thus, the effect on social outcomes seems to provide the strongest evidence supporting the education of students with MR in general education classrooms and schools. (It is important to note that for the purposes of their review, Freeman and Alkin did not specifically define what they meant by "mild" or "severe" MR noting only that older studies included in their review "likely defined mental retardation by an IQ cutoff score

roughly between 50 and 85" (p. 13).) LEGAL MANDATES Although research provides some support for the education of students with MR in general education settings for all or part of the school day, the regulations that have accompanied the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its subsequent amendments have defined least restrictive environment (LRE) in terms of a continuum of educational settings. The LRE provision in the IDEA mandates that states educate students with disabilities with students who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Furthermore, separate schooling or other removal of students with disabilities from the general education classroom should occur only when the nature or severity of the student's disability is such that education in general education classes cannot be satisfactorily achieved with the use of supplementary aids and services. The LRE requirement is further strengthened by the requirements that each student's individualized education program (IEP) consider how the student will have access to and make progress in the general education curriculum and explain the extent to which the student will not be educated and participate with students without disabilities (Sec. 614 (d)). Although these mandates do not require states to educate every student with a disability in a general education classroom for part or all of the school day, they do result in a strong presumption in favor of educating students with disabilities in general education classroom settings. The lack of an absolute standard for LRE has resulted in interpretation of the requirement by the courts (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002). JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS Several federal court decisions have strengthened the movement to educate children with MR in general education classrooms. In the Oberti v. Clementon [1993] case, the judge ruled that inclusion in general education classrooms was a right and not a privilege for a select few (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002). In the Sacramento v. Rachel H. [1994] decision, the court ruled that when determining appropriate placements for students with disabilities, schools and districts must consider (a) the educational benefits of general education placement compared to the educational benefits of special education placement, (b) the social benefits of interactions between students with disabilities and typically developing peers, and (c) the effect of the student with disability's presence on the teacher and on other students. This three-prong test for inclusive placement is considered to be "the highwater mark of the inclusion movement" (Douvanis & Hulsey, p. 3). More recent court rulings, (e.g. Doe v. Arlington County [1999] and Hudson v. Bloomfield Hills [1997]), "seem to be defining least restrictive environment in accordance with the language of IDEA-namely, that students with disabilities should be educated with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate" (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002, p. 3). Whereas the courts have influenced the educational placements of students with MR over time, so too has the change in definition of who can be labeled with MR. CHANGING DEFINITION OF MENTAL RETARDATION The American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR), the oldest professional association concerned with issues regarding MR, has defined and revised the construct of MR 10 times since 1921. Early definitions focused on particular levels of intellectual functioning as defined by IQ testing and cutoff scores. For example, persons with MR who had an IQ range between 50-55 and 70 were identified with "mild mental retardation" and classified as "educable," whereas those with IQs between 20-25 to 35-40 were identified with "severe" MR and were classified educationally as "severely/multiply handicapped" (Grossman, 1983; Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, Smith & Leal, 2002). In addition, early definitions focused on deficits in adaptive behavior. These classifications were part of the definitions until 1992. More recent iterations of AAMR's definition and classification system have sought to focus on a more skills-based definition that includes limitations in intelligence that coexist with limitations in adaptive skills (Luckasson et al., 1992; Luckasson et al., 2002; Turnbull et al., 2002). It provides for

understanding the kinds of supports a person with MR might need instead of focusing on their limitations. Denning, Chamberlain, and Polloway (2000) noted that many thought this change in definition was perhaps a harbinger that "provided a new direction for identification procedures" (p. 226). However, in a survey of the classification guidelines used by states for labeling persons with MR, Denning and his colleagues found that as of 1998, the vast majority of states continued to use the Grossman (1983) definition verbatim or in some adapted form, whereas 13 states no longer used an IQ cut-off score to determine mental retardation. Thus, the manner by which states identify persons with MR influences the prevalence of MR within each state, and some have suggested that students previously labeled with MR may now be labeled with learning disabilities (Greenspan, 1998). TRENDS IN EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS It is obvious from the preceding review that several factors have influenced where states have chosen to educate students with MR. Within this changing context of policy and practices, it is important to examine national trends in the education of students with MR in general education classrooms. Few studies have been conducted that address placement trends for students with MR. Danielson and Bellamy (1989) examined state reported data from the Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1988) for the school years 1976-1977 through 1985-1986 and concluded that there was "little change in the use of separate facilities" (p. 448) for students with all disabilities during this time. Using this analysis, The Arc concluded that the record of providing inclusive placements for students with MR was dismal (Davis, 1992). An investigation by Sawyer, McLaughlin, and Winglee (1994) examined national LRE data through the 1980s and found that as the decade progressed, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of students with MR who were placed in general education public schools. However, these investigators also found that students who were placed in these settings were increasingly likely to spend some of the school day in the general education classroom. In a study of placement practices across the United States for students with MR based on data from the early 1990s, McLeskey, Henry, and Hodges (1998) observed a decrease in the placement of students with MR in separate schools that was reported by Sawyer et al., but found that very few students with MR were being educated in general education classrooms for most of the day (McLeskey, Henry, & Hodges, 1999). A study by Katsiyannis, Zhang, and Archwamety (2002) resulted in similar findings, as these researchers also found that throughout the decade of the 1990s, fewer students with MR were being educated in separate settings. These investigators also found that placements of students with MR in general education classrooms seemed to be increasing as the decade progressed, although there was much variability across regions of the United States. The present investigation was conducted to examine current data regarding the extent to which students with MR are being educated in general education classrooms, and the extent to which changes in these practices occurred during the decade of the 1990s. More specifically, the purposes of this study were to (a) examine state-reported data from Annual Reports to determine trends in the use of various educational settings for school-age students with MR over a 10-year period from the 1989-1990 through the 1999-2000 school years and (b) investigate the extent to which individual states and the District of Columbia vary in the use of the different educational placements for students identified as having MR.