As suggested by Taylor (2004) the concept of the continuum impacts individuals with disabilities across the lifespan. EHA (now IDEA) introduced the COS language into educational decisions and one way to implementing the COS regulation was suggested by Reynolds' back in 1962 and again by Deno in 1970. Both authors advocated for a continuum of least to most restrictive placement model based on an individual’s severity of disability or level of service needs. Thus, according to Taylor the roots of the least to most restrictive placement model based on level of service need has confused segregated placement with level of service needs. This confusion is evident in the school’s I've examined during other projects and has been communicated as a barrier to full-inclusion for all students, especially those identified as needing intensive services.
In addition, preliminary findings of this analysis are suggesting that a tension between placement in the general education setting as the best place for a student to be educated, the level of service need, and the continuum of alternative placements regulations of IDEA is deeply rooted. With the passing of P.L. 94-142 (EHA and IDEA today) the continuum language was introduced into law as a right, stating “each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services” immediately following language that states the regular class as the preferred placement (EHA, 1974 & IDEA, 2004). This language existed in its entirety in the first passing of the law and has remained the same through the most recent reauthorization (2004). It is this tension between regular class placement as the preferred LRE and the regulated concept of offering a continuum of alternative placements that I hope to explore.
Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229-237.
Education of the Handicapped Act means the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. 1401-1461 (1975).
Hsieh, H-F., Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Reynolds, M (1962). A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 28, 367-370.
Taylor, S.J. (2004). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(4), 218-230.
You're right, the link to the audio isn't working. Using the Mac platform should make for an easy transition. I recommend checking in with the iTeach Lounge when you are on campus - I am sure it's a simple click that you're just missing. The written piece was very informative - gave me a better understanding of your scope.
ReplyDeleteHi Amy,
ReplyDeleteI really like this direction you are going in with the interviews and focusing on local control. It will be interesting to see if the local units within larger unit differ on their implementation, understanding, and their approach (obviously we know they will). Im very speculative about this local decision making process. I almost attribute it to a conspiracy theory, one thats driven by adult convenience rather than child rights.
It sounds as though what started out as a good idea -- providing multiple services to accommodate multiple levels of need -- got misinterpreted somewhere along the line. Are you saying that the mandate is now being applied in a manner opposite from its original intent?
ReplyDeleteI just might be..... or at least would like to see if that is so. Maybe I'm also saying intent has shifted over time (or should shift). We are beyond the original Disability Rights movement. Values have, or should have, changed since the early 70's in terms of education and individuals given labels. It was about access. We have that, now what's it about?
ReplyDelete