Sunday, November 1, 2015

Inclusion for Students with Autism Varies by State


The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) (P.L. 108-446) (http://idea.ed.gov/) guarantees a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for every student with a disability. The LRE provision mandates that “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”  In general, inclusion (or inclusive education) with typical peers is often considered to be the best placement option for students with disabilities. 

Child characteristics such as severity of autism symptoms are thought to determine educational placement. However, where a child lives may significantly impact whether they are placed in an inclusive or segregated classroom, a national analysis suggests. The study published online in the journal Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities examined external factors, including state of residence and state funding formulas, to determine their potential influence on placement outcomes. On average, about 37 percent of students on the autism spectrum spent at least 80 percent of their school day in inclusive environments. But the numbers varied considerably from one state to the next, ranging from just 8 percent in Washington, D.C. to 62 percent in Iowa. 

There was considerable variation among states in placing students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in inclusive, mainstreaming, self-contained, and separate schools. Specifically, states varied substantially in the percentage of students with ASD educated in each setting, with some states consistently favoring inclusion (Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). Other states, however, generally leaned toward more restrictive settings (Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington, D.C.). States in the Eastern United States tended to have more restrictive placement rates than states in the Western United States. State special education funding was found to have a minimal impact on placement outcomes.
These findings suggest that factors that are external to child characteristics (e.g., severity of ASD symptoms) influence educational placement decisions for students with ASD. “If child-specific factors were solely responsible for education placement decisions, one would expect states to have similar rates of inclusive, self-contained, mainstreaming and separate school placements for students with ASDs,” the author commented. “Instead, … results indicate that educational placement varies by state.” 

Overall, it is unlikely that child characteristics alone determine placement outcomes. Although it is arguably safe to assume that the first placement for a student with ASD would be an inclusive setting, analysis of the public data presented in this study suggests that many states are still falling short of including students with ASD in general education settings for significant portions of the day. The argument must now shift from should we include students with ASD in general education to understanding how to include students with ASD meaningfully and successfully in inclusive settings. It is critical to identify how those practices that benefit students with ASD, including structure (visual supports, communication supports, and social supports), positive behavior supports, and systematic instruction, can be implemented meaningfully and seamlessly in general education settings. Lastly, those who place students with ASD in educational settings should determine the unique needs of the individual, and match those needs to specific supports and services that will be provided in general education settings.
Jennifer A. Kurth,  Educational Placement of Students With Autism: The Impact of State of Residence, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, first published on September 3, 2014 doi:10.1177/1088357614547891.
Lee A. Wilkinson, PhD, NCSP is a licensed and nationally certified school psychologist, registered psychologist, and certified cognitive-behavioral therapist. He provides consultation services and best practice guidance to school systems, agencies, advocacy groups, and professionals on a wide variety of topics related to children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Dr. Wilkinson is author of the award-winning books,  A Best Practice Guide to Assessment and Intervention for Autism and Asperger Syndrome in Schools and Overcoming Anxiety and Depression on the Autism Spectrum: A Self-Help Guide Using CBTHe is also editor of a best-selling text in the APA School Psychology Book Series, Autism Spectrum Disorder in Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Assessment and Intervention in Schools. His latest book is A Best Practice Guide to Assessment and Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorder in Schools (2nd Edition).

Follow by Email

Top 10 Most Popular Best Practice Posts

Search BestPracticeAutism.com

Blog Archive

Best Practice Books

Total Pageviews