National Council on Disability

February 7, 2018

IDEA Series 

The Segregation of Students 

with Disabilities
National Council on Disability (NCD)

1331 F Street NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

(IDEA Series) The Segregation of Students with Disabilities

National Council on Disability, February 7, 2018 

Celebrating 30 years as an independent federal agency

This report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability 

(NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the following 

information:

ncd@ncd.gov Email

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this and 

all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
Letter of Transmittal

February 7, 2018

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit this report titled The 

Segregation of Students with Disabilities. This report is part of a five-report series on the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that describes the legal and scientific basis for an inclusive 

versus segregated education, summarizes national patterns for educating students with disabilities 

in general education classes, examines federal and state guidance, and state compliance with 

federal mandates, describes effective educational practices for reducing segregation, and provides 

findings and recommendations for improvement.

As you know, the right of students with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate public 

education in the least restrictive environment is solidly rooted in the guarantee of equal protection 

under the law granted to all citizens under the Constitution. In enacting IDEA, Congress sought to 

end the long history of segregation and exclusion of children with disabilities from the American 

public school system. IDEA requires that students with disabilities be educated to the maximum 

extent possible with students without disabilities. However, many students with disabilities remain 

segregated in self-contained classrooms or in separate schools, with limited or no opportunities to 

participate academically and socially in general education classrooms and school activities. Many do 

not have access to the same academic and extracurricular activities and services provided to other 

students. Frequently, these students leave school unprepared for adult life in the community.

NCD stands ready to assist the Administration in ensuring the right to a free and appropriate public 

education for students with disabilities as set forth in IDEA.

Respectfully,

Clyde E. Terry

Chairperson

National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of 

the U.S. House of Representatives.)
2 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

Clyde E. Terry, Chairperson

Benro T. Ogunyipe, Vice Chairperson

Billy W. Altom

Rabia Belt

James T. Brett

Bob Brown

Daniel M. Gade

Wendy S. Harbour

Neil Romano

Staff

Vacant, Executive Director

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor

Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor

Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach

Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Lisa Grubb, Director of Operations and Administration

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 3
4 National Council on Disability
Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability thanks Selene Almazan, Denise Marshall, and Melina Latona of the 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; and Carol Quirk of the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive 

Education, for the research conducted in developing this report.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 5
6 National Council on Disability
Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Key Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Acronym Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Policy Analysis and Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Literature, Case Law, and Legislative Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Quantitative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

National Data Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Limitations. .

Chapter 1: Legal Foundation for Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Early Litigation and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

The Right to a Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

The LRE Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Placement Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 2: National Placement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Placement Practices across States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Disproportionate Placement Practices across Disability Labels . . . . . . . .  2

Disproportionate Placement across Racial/Ethnic Groups . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Chapter 3: Federal and State Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Federal Policy Letters and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

State Regulations and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Monitoring and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 7
Chapter 4: Challenges to Inclusive General Education Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Continuum of Placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Attitudes and Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Organizational Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Organizational and Workforce Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Chapter 5: The Research Base: Why Include Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Benefits to Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Benefits to Students without Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Opportunity to Learn: Special Versus Regular Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Chapter 6: The Research Base: Strategies That Promote Effective 

Inclusive Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Universal Design for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Cooperative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Differentiated Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Data-Based Instructional Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Peer-Assisted Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Culturally Responsive Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Multi-Tiered System of Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Chapter 7: Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Policies. .

Effectiveness. .

Demographics. .

Disability. .

Race. .

ED Response. .

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

National and State Placement Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

8 National Council on Disability
T

he legal and scientific basis for special 

education services points to the positive 

outcomes for students with disabilities 

when they receive an inclusive versus 

segregated education. Yet nationally, students 

with disabilities, in particular students of color 

and students in urban settings, as well as 

students with specific disability labels (such as 

autism or intellectual disability), continue to be 

removed from general education, instructional, 

and social opportunities and to be segregated 

disproportionately when compared to White 

students who live in suburban and rural areas and 

those who have less intensive academic support 

needs.

Key Findings

For this report, national student placement 

patterns, as well as federal and state policies, 

were reviewed to understand the state of special 

education service delivery and administrative 

guidance. This was supplemented by a review of 

research and input from families and educators 

about their experiences in educating students 

with disabilities. We found that, although states 

are required to first consider that a student with 

a disability should attend the school that they 

would attend if they did not have a disability and 

only if the student’s needs cannot be met, this 

consideration was not always present. States 

are expected to only remove the student to 

the extent needed to implement the student’s 

individual plan and meet individually designed 

goals. Further, research demonstrates that 

inclusive education results in the best learning 

outcomes; there is no research that supports the 

value of a segregated special education class and 

school. The emerging picture, however, is one in 

which the opportunity for students to participate 

in their neighborhood school alongside their 

peers without disabilities is influenced more by 

the zip code in which they live, their race, and 

disability label, than by meeting the federal law 

defining how student placements should be 

made. While there are states and examples of 

schools that are indeed meeting the learning 

needs of students—even those with extensive 

support needs—that is more the exception than 

the rule. While the Federal Government monitors 

and reviews state performance on a number 

of indicators, including placement practices, 

there does not appear to be sanctions or strong 

guidance that directs states to attend to this 

concern.

Key Recommendations

It is recommended that Congress support full 

funding for special education, and that any 

funding authorized by Congress emphasize the 

delivery of special education services in general 

Executive Summary

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 9
education settings. Further, discretionary grants 

for research and development should establish 

expectations for inclusive school practices, 

particularly those that address personnel 

development and organizational changes to 

sustain effective education services that address 

the needs of all students in an equitable manner 

to achieve equitable outcomes. This report 

also recommends that the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) stand boldly in its support of 

inclusive education, and maintain data collection 

on the amount of time students spend in 

general education and the location of student 

placements. Funding opportunities for national 

centers and significant projects should ensure 

that recipients plan to:

■ prepare teachers, administrators, and related 

service providers to implement effective 

schoolwide, equity-based educational 

services; and

■ build state and local capacity for sustainable 

inclusive education practices. States should 

be expected to carefully analyze their 

placement data, and consider it with respect 

to disproportionate placement practices for 

students by disability label and race, across 

their local jurisdictions.

10 National Council on Disability
Acronym Glossary

APR annual performance report

ASL American Sign Language

COPAA Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

DCL Dear Colleague Letter

DOJ US Department of Justice

ED US Department of Education

EHA Education for All Handicapped Children Act

FAPE free appropriate public education

HHS US Department of Health and Human Services

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP individualized education program

IES Institute for Educational Sciences

LEA local education agency

LRE least restrictive environment

MTSS multi-tiered system of supports

NCD National Council on Disability

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

PAL peer-assisted learning

PBIS positive behavior interventions and supports

RJ restorative justice

RP restorative practices

RTI response to intervention

UDL universal design for learning

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 11
Just as the law does not define special 

education as a place, but rather the 

configuration of services and supports as 

defined in a student’s IEP, inclusion is not 

a place, but rather a systemic approach 

to uniquely addressing student learning 

and social engagement within the same 

instructional frameworks and settings 

designed for the whole school community. 

12 National Council on Disability
Education is universally accepted as a 

human right and the means to transform 

lives, especially for children who are 

marginalized by mainstream society. Education 

is critical for closing the opportunity gap for 

disenfranchised children, particularly children 

living in poverty or remote areas with limited 

resources, children with disabilities, and children 

from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds.1

Children and youth with disabilities and 

their parents have long fought for equal access 

to education. As late as the 1960s, it was 

standard for students with disabilities to be 

completely excluded from the public education 

system. In the 1960s and 1970s, parents began 

successfully asserting that their children could 

learn and demanded that their children’s right to 

an education be codified into law. As a result, 

Congress sought “to end the long history of 

segregation and exclusion of children with 

disabilities from the American public education 

system,”2 and made a promise that every eligible 

child, regardless of the nature or severity of the 

child’s disability, could go to school and learn 

alongside their peers. In 1975, the Education for 

All Handicapped Children Act (EHA)3 was passed, 

which opened school house doors and mandated 

free and appropriate public education for children 

with disabilities, and the provision of special 

education and related services designed to meet 

their unique needs and prepare them for further 

education, employment, and independent living.

When EHA was amended as the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 

and 2004, each amendment required states that 

accepted IDEA funding to ensure that all students 

with disabilities receive a free and appropriate 

public education, and that they do so in the least 

restrictive environment (LRE).4 To ensure these 

standards are met, the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) obliges each state to submit an 

annual performance report (APR) that details the 

extent to which their local education agencies 

(LEAs) comply with federal requirements 

and demonstrate results for children with 

disabilities, including placement, academic, 

and behavioral data for all students and across 

various subgroups.5 Among the data collected 

is the extent to which preschool and school-age 

students with disabilities are educated alongside 

peers without disabilities in “regular” (i.e., 

general education) classes versus the amount of 

time they are taught in segregated settings and 

groups only for students with disabilities.

In addition to a legal base for educating 

students with disabilities alongside peers without 

disabilities, researchers and practitioners have 

sought to identify the most effective practices 

for teaching students with disabilities and 

demonstrate their impact. Using scientific 

Introduction

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 13
methods as well as documenting practices, 

a body of literature points to instructional 

methodology that is most effective in teaching 

students with a variety of educational needs. 

With an interest in promoting effective strategies, 

ED funds demonstration projects, research, 

technical assistance centers, personnel 

preparation projects, and parent centers to 

promote the most successful and equitable 

practices.

This report describes the legal and scientific 

basis for an inclusive versus segregated 

education, summarizes national patterns for 

educating students with disabilities in general 

education classes, examines federal and state 

guidance and state compliance with federal 

mandates, and describes effective educational 

practices for reducing segregation. Input 

from stakeholders was collected to provide 

an accurate and current picture of what is 

experienced by educators, families, and children 

with disabilities. As part of the research, the 

following global research questions were 

explored:

1. To what extent are students with disabilities 

participating in, and being removed from, 

general education opportunities with peers 

without disabilities?

2. What is the Federal Government response 

to states that are segregating students with 

disabilities?

3. What are the evidence-based practices 

that schools, districts, and states should 

implement to include students with 

disabilities in general education and 

minimize unnecessary removal?

Research Methods

To address these questions, the National Council 

on Disability (NCD) research team conducted 

a mixed-methods study gathering stakeholder 

perspectives, as well as policy and quantitative 

information. With this information, we describe 

experiences for these populations of students, 

identify any potential gaps in services, policy, and 

research, and make recommendations particularly 

as they relate to the placement and participation 

of students with disabilities in general education.

Qualitative Analysis

To gather stakeholder perspectives, the NCD 

research team conducted interviews, and held 

four regional forums and one national forum. 

Specifically, we conducted semistructured 

interviews with state and local educators, 

parents, students or adults with disabilities, 

Research Questions Addressed 

in Report

1. To what extent are students with 

disabilities participating in, and being 

removed from, general education 

opportunities with peers without 

disabilities?

2. What is the Federal Government’s 

response to states that are segregating 

students with disabilities?

3. What are the evidence-based practices 

that schools, districts, and states should 

implement to include students with 

disabilities in general education and 

minimize unnecessary removal?

14 National Council on Disability
attorneys, and educational advocates to 

determine current challenges to the placement 

and participation of students with disabilities in 

general education.

In the second phase of research, we gathered 

perspectives from parents and students through 

four regional forums in California, Illinois, Texas, 

and Virginia. NCD recruited participants through 

the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates 

(COPAA)’s member network, local parent 

networks, and state and national partners in the 

forum locations. In total, 72 people participated 

in the regional forums. Thirty percent of regional 

forum participants were COPAA members and 

70 percent were non-COPAA members. Of the 

72 participants in the regional forum, 38 percent 

were parents or students of color.

Forum input was supplemented with individual 

interviews with seven individuals from Maryland, 

Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Florida 

about their experiences with student placement 

practices and the factors that influence the 

segregation and inclusion of students with 

disabilities. Of these respondents, three were 

parents (two of whom actively advocated for their 

own as well as other children with disabilities), one 

was a recent high school graduate with a disability, 

one was a lawyer and educational advocate, and 

two were educators for more than 20 years. A 

structured questionnaire was used to ask each 

interviewee similar questions, and gave them the 

opportunity to expand based on their experience 

and knowledge of the educational system. 

Responses were recorded verbatim in writing.

The third phase of data collection was an 

online forum at COPAA’s national conference. In 

total, 58 people participated in the forum. Twentythree percent were people of color. An additional 

23 people responded through an email address.6

In all settings, NCD used a semistructured 

question protocol to gain perspectives about 

parent and child experiences with IDEA. Data 

were recorded and transcribed to identify themes 

among the experiences (see Appendix for 

protocols).

Policy Analysis and Literature 

Review

Federal law is interpreted by federal agencies in 

regulations, policy letters, and other guidance 

documents. In addition, ED issues individual 

letters to states regarding their compliance 

and the results for children with disabilities, 

and compiles these outcomes into a publicly 

available report.7 The analysis of IDEA state 

regulations and compliance, and a sample 

of state determinations were reviewed and 

viewed with respect to their placement data and 

trends over time. In addition, publicly available 

statues, policies, and guidance from a sample 

of states were reviewed with respect to the 

kind of direction offered to local school districts, 

particularly as it relates to the placement and 

participation of students with disabilities in 

general education.

Literature, Case Law, and Legislative 

Review

Litigation and legislation related to placement 

requirements and interpretation of the law 

were reviewed and summarized, as well as 

peer-reviewed research and descriptions 

of policies and practices affecting the 

education of students as published in a 

variety of professional journals. Articles 

related to methods, influences, and impact of 

inclusive versus segregated placements are 

summarized.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 15
Quantitative Data

National Data Review

In addition to annual Reports to Congress, the 

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) regularly provides 

data on students with disabilities through a 

data website.8 The most recent placement data 

available, quantified by amount of time in and 

removed from general education, was reviewed 

for all states for the 2015–2016 school year. 

Further analysis of placement by disability label 

and by race was reviewed and compared to data 

from the 2005–2006 school year. We provide 

narrative descriptions on placement patterns 

in the report, and the actual data is provided in 

tables in the Appendix.

Limitations

In this study, NCD recruited participants 

through COPAA’s member network, local parent 

networks, and state and national partners in 

the forum locations, and purposefully selected 

interview participants based on location 

and position. Therefore, the qualitative data 

identified in the report should not be viewed 

as generalizable, but rather as perspectives 

of individuals within those positions. The 

qualitative data offers individual first-person 

perspectives to complement the quantitative 

aspects of this report. The national data 

regarding student placement is based on 

the interpretation of “removal” from general 

education settings by individual members of 

school teams, and might not accurately reflect 

the intent of the Federal Government in its 

efforts to determine if students are participating 

in general education. It is, however, the only 

quantifiable measure that exists related to 

teaching students with disabilities across 

various setting configurations.

16 National Council on Disability
Chapter 1: Legal Foundation for Inclusion

Early Litigation and Legislation

I

n 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. 

Board of Education that separate schooling 

for African American children was not an 

equal education because separate educational 

facilities were inherently unequal.9 Ten years 

later, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

was passed, holding that “[n]o person in the 

United States shall, on the ground of race, color, 

or national origin, be excluded from participation 

in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 

to discrimination under any program or activity 

receiving Federal 

financial assistance.”10

On the heels of these 

developments, advocates 

and parents of children 

with disabilities fought for 

the same kind of equal 

access to education. They 

not only sought the right to attend school, but 

also the right to participate in and benefit from 

a quality education. Two landmark cases were 

brought in 1972: the Pennsylvania Association for 

Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania,

11 and Mills v. Board of Education 

of District of Columbia.

12 In both PARC and Mills, 

the judges agreed that local laws that excluded 

children with disabilities from public schools 

were a violation of the Constitution, and laid the 

groundwork to establish the right of students 

with disabilities to access a public education.

The Right to a Public Education

In the wake of PARC and Mills, Section 504(a) 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was passed, 

and established that “[n]o otherwise qualified 

individual with a disability in the United 

States, . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his 

disability, be excluded from the participation 

in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 

to discrimination under any program or activity 

receiving Federal 

financial assistance or 

under any program or 

activity conducted by 

any Executive agency 

or by the United States 

Postal Service.”13 In 

1975, Congress passed 

EHA,14 which would later be reauthorized as 

IDEA,15 mandating a free public education for all 

children with disabilities and requiring states to 

ensure that all students with disabilities receive 

a free and appropriate public education in LRE.16

This law continues today as a means of ensuring 

that states establish policies and procedures 

for special education services that comply with 

the law, monitor implementation at the local 

level, and promote the intended outcomes for 

In both PARC and Mills, the judges 

agreed that local laws that excluded 

children with disabilities from public 

schools were a violation of the 

Constitution . . .

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 17
all children and youth with disabilities: access to 

general education and extracurricular activities 

with peers without disabilities.

Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act

IDEA defines special education as specially 

designed instruction “so that the child can 

meet the educational standards . . . that apply 

to all children.”17 Each student must have an 

individualized education program (IEP) with goals 

designed by an IEP team to meet the child’s 

needs that result from the disability for two 

reasons:

1. To enable the child to be involved in and 

make progress in the general education 

curriculum, and

2. To meet each of the child’s other educational 

needs that result from the disability.18

Each IEP must identify the special education, 

related services, supplementary aids and 

services, program modifications, and support for 

school personnel to enable the child to achieve 

his or her annual goals, make progress in the 

general education curriculum, and be educated 

alongside children with and without disabilities.19

Students with disabilities, even those who take 

an alternate assessment based on alternate 

achievement standards, are explicitly expected 

to have IEP goals aligned with their grade level 

curricula. Each state must ensure that personnel 

are “appropriately and adequately prepared and 

trained, and have the content knowledge and 

skills to serve children with disabilities.”20

The LRE Requirement

IDEA states that each public agency shall ensure, 

“that to the maximum extent appropriate, 

children with disabilities . . . are educated with 

children who are nondisabled,” “as close as 

possible to the child’s home,” “in the school he 

or she would attend if not disabled.”21 It also 

stipulates that removal from general education 

classes to separate special classes or schools 

“occurs only if the nature or severity of the 

disability is such that education in regular 

classes with the use of supplementary aids and 

services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”22

Each public agency must ensure that each child 

with a disability has the supplementary aids and 

services needed for the child to participate with 

children without disabilities in extracurricular 

services and activities “in the manner necessary 

to afford children with disabilities an equal 

opportunity for participation in those services and 

activities.”23

Placement Decisions

The starting point for all placement decisions is 

intended to begin with the general education 

classes in the school the student would attend 

if they did not have a disability. IEP teams may 

consider removing a student to more restrictive 

placement if the nature or severity of a child’s 

disability is such that, even with the provision of 

supplementary aids and services in the general 

education setting, an education in the regular 

class will not be appropriate or successful.24 If 

the student will not participate in the general 

education setting, curriculum, or in nonacademic 

or extracurricular activities, then the IEP team 

must offer an explanation of the extent to which 

such removals will occur and are necessary.

The regulations describe a “continuum of 

alternative placements” that public agencies 

must be ready to provide if needed, including: 

regular classes, special classes, special schools, 

18 National Council on Disability
home instruction, hospital settings, and private 

and public facilities, such as separate day 

schools or residential programs.25 The law does 

not require each and every possible placement 

option along the continuum be filled with 

students, but only that public agencies make 

these options available when, and if, needed. 

Clearly, the LRE requirements express a strong 

preference, not a mandate, for educating children 

with disabilities in regular classes alongside 

their peers without disabilities.26 In selecting 

the educational environment, IEP teams must 

consider any potentially harmful effect on the 

child or on the quality of services that he or she 

receives that might result from the change in 

placement. The US Department of Education’s 

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) addressed 

placement questions regarding LRE and free 

appropriate public 

education (FAPE) for deaf 

children using American 

Sign Language (ASL) as 

their primary means of 

communication. OCR 

guidance emphasized 

that “[m]eeting the 

unique communication 

and related needs of a student who is deaf is a 

fundamental part of providing . . . FAPE to the 

child. Any setting, including a regular classroom 

that prevents a child who is deaf from receiving 

an appropriate education that meets his or her 

needs including communication needs is not 

the LRE for that individual child.”27 For some 

deaf or hard-of-hearing students or students 

with other disabilities who communicate 

through ASL, LRE and FAPE might be best 

met by utilizing both languages (i.e., ASL and 

English) used by the child’s family, community, 

and culture. The students’ language development 

and communication needs, as well as their ability 

to further learn English and other academic 

content, might be best met in a part-time or fulltime immersion bilingual and bicultural setting 

within their school or in a school that offers full 

immersion. These determinations must be made 

on an individualized basis.

Importantly, IDEA instructs that students 

with disabilities should not be removed from 

regular classrooms solely because of the 

needed modifications to the general education 

curriculum.28

Case Law

Several courts have addressed LRE, each 

setting forth a slightly different standard. The 

Sixth Circuit Court was the first to address 

educational placements 

and the “least restrictive” 

requirement. In Roncker 

v. Walter,29 the court 

developed a two-part test 

to guide the appropriate 

placement for a student 

with a disability:

1. Could the educational services provided in 

the segregated setting be feasibly provided 

in a nonsegregated setting? (If so, the 

segregated placement is inappropriate.)

2. Is the student being mainstreamed to the 

maximum extent appropriate?

This is commonly referred to as the 

“portability” doctrine that separates services 

from setting. A few years later, another federal 

court relied on the Roncker decision in developing 

a two-part test for meeting the LRE requirement.

IDEA instructs that students with 

disabilities should not be removed 

from regular classrooms solely 

because of the needed modifications 

to the general education curriculum.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 19
In Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education,

30

parents appealed a hearing decision that placed 

their six-year-old son in a special education 

classroom. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 

declined to follow the Roncker test and 

developed its own approach, asking the following 

questions:

1. Can education in the general education 

classroom be achieved satisfactorily with 

the use of supplementary aids and services 

and with modifications?

2. Will the student receive benefit from general 

education?

3. What is the students overall educational 

experience in the mainstreamed 

environment, 

balancing the 

benefits of regular 

and special 

education for each 

individual student?

4. What effect does the student’s presence 

have on the regular education environment 

that the other students are receiving?

The Daniel R.R. Court went on to say that 

if a student’s education cannot be achieved 

satisfactorily, the next question is whether the 

student has been mainstreamed to the maximum 

extent appropriate, noting that the statute does 

not contemplate an all-or-nothing approach, 

that is, either all regular or all special education 

placement: that a student might be appropriately 

placed in some regular and some special 

education academic classes or special education 

academic classes and regular nonacademic 

classes.

The continuum of placements concepts was 

also emphasized in the case of Greer v. Rome,

31

where parents of a child with an intellectual 

disability disagreed with a team recommendation 

to place her in a self-contained kindergarten 

classroom. The Eleventh Circuit determined that 

the school had failed to consider less restrictive 

settings prior to placing the student in a selfcontained classroom. The court went on that 

IDEA requires an IEP team to at least consider, 

discuss, and justify why they would recommend 

not placing a student in the general education 

classroom, and, only then, to systematically 

move to less restrictive placement options.

The term inclusion replaced the term 

mainstreaming in the case of Oberti v. 

Clementon.

32 Rafael 

Oberti was an eightyear-old child with 

Down syndrome whose 

behavior was alleged to 

disrupt the classroom 

and therefore required a self-contained special 

education class located outside of the school 

district. Rafael’s parents wanted him to be 

included in his neighborhood school. The Third 

Circuit court said that:

a determination that a child with disabilities 

might make greater academic progress in a 

segregated, special education class may not 

warrant excluding that child from a regular 

classroom environment. We emphasize 

that the Act does not require states to 

offer the same educational experience 

to a child with disabilities as is generally 

provided for nondisabled children.” “To the 

contrary, states must address the unique 

needs of a disabled child, recognizing that 

The term inclusion replaced the 

term mainstreaming in the case of 

Oberti v. Clemento

20 National Council on Disability
that child may benefit differently from 

education in the regular classroom than 

other students.” “In short, the fact that a 

child with disabilities will learn differently 

from his or her education within a regular 

classroom does not justify exclusion from 

that environment.33

In Sacramento v. Rachel H.,

34 the parents 

of Rachel Holland, a third-grade student with 

intellectual disabilities, argued that with 

appropriate supplementary aids and services, she 

could be educated in the general classroom. The 

school district proposed that Rachel be placed 

in special education for academic subjects, 

and attend the general education class only 

for nonacademic activities. The Ninth Circuit 

court ruled that, in determining the appropriate 

placement, schools must take into consideration 

four factors:

1. The educational benefits of integrated 

settings versus segregated settings

2. Nonacademic benefits (primarily social 

interaction with peers without disabilities)

3. The effect the student with a disability can 

have on the teacher and his or her peers, 

and

4. The cost of supplementary services that will 

be required for that student to stay in the 

integrated setting.

Since then, there have been other courts 

that have applied these seminal rulings. See, for 

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 21
example, T.R. v. Kingwood Tp. Bd. Of Educ.35 and 

P. v. Newington.

36

Despite the strong legal support for including 

students with disabilities in general education 

settings and activities, parents attending regional 

forums described some of the reasons they 

were given by IEP teams for more restrictive 

placements that are clearly at odds with IDEA: 

the convenience of the school, teachers not 

having the skills to address specific disability 

support needs, or because schools did not have 

needed special education services available in the 

regular education setting. 

As one parent explained:

All the children 

with moderate to 

significant needs for 

autism go to certain 

schools. They live right 

across the street from 

the neighborhood 

school, but the 

student attends a school that is 25 minutes 

away because “support services can’t 

be provided at the neighborhood school.” 

There was no explanation for why this is the 

case.37

Families report that school representatives 

do not understand how to provide specialized 

instruction in a regular classroom or how to 

teach positive, pro-social behavior for students 

with and without disabilities. Some parents felt 

that students are grouped according to disability 

labels or type of supports needed, which often 

leads to lowered or limited expectations. This was 

verified in an interview with an autistic student:

. . . (for) middle school I was in a mix of 

special education classes and regular 

classes . . . (and) absolutely felt segregated 

and despised that fact, especially since, 

from my perspective, the special education 

course material did not challenge me at all.38

To this student, the negative experience in the 

special education class was exacerbated by “the 

condescending, peculiar attitude of many of the 

special educators.”

A parent and advocate 

interviewed for this 

report emphasized that 

there are limits placed on 

educating students with 

disabilities when they are 

viewed as if they belong 

in a group:

When I tell people that my children have 

intellectual disabilities and autism, I’ve told 

(them) nothing . . . the greatest disservice 

we do to people with disabilities, including 

students with disabilities, is to view them 

as one homogeneous group . . . labeling 

a group of children . . . and lumping them 

in one bucket and one classroom does 

them a disservice. All inclusion, all the 

time, everywhere, every day—does the 

same thing. It doesn’t recognize the fact 

that students need the services uniquely 

(designed) to meet their particular needs.39

“[T]he greatest disservice we do 

to . . . students with disabilities, is 

to view them as one homogeneous 

group . . . labeling a group of 

children . . . and lumping them in 

one bucket and one classroom does 

them a disservice.”

22 National Council on Disability
ED submits annual reports to Congress 

on how states are implementing IDEA, 

which includes data on the extent to which 

students with disabilities participate in general 

education with their peers without disabilities, 

among other data sets.40 States are required to 

submit statistics that track the amount of time 

students spend in general education settings, 

and when in separate, 

segregated facilities 

(e.g., special school 

or residential facility), 

what kind of separate 

setting. When a student 

attends a regular public 

school, their placement is 

recorded as follows:

■ Participation in 

general education 

classes 80 percent 

or more of the day41

■ Participation in general education classes 

40–79 percent of the day

■ Participation in general education classes 

less than 40 percent of the day42

Placement Practices across States

Table 1 in the Appendix displays data for each 

state and U.S. territory, and demonstrates the 

wide variance in the amount of time that students 

access general education settings and instruction 

with peers without disabilities. In 2015–2016, the 

Pacific Islands had the highest rate of including 

students with disabilities 80 percent or more of 

the time in general education (an average of 88% 

for the four islands), followed by Alabama (84%), 

Vermont (76%), Nebraska (76%), North Dakota 

(74%), and Kentucky 

(74%). States with the 

lowest rates of including 

students 80 percent or 

more of the time are 

Hawaii (37%), New 

Jersey (46%), Montana 

(47%), Illinois (53%), 

and Arkansas (53%). 

States with the highest 

rates of placing students 

in separate classes 

are California, Hawaii, 

New York, and New Mexico; while Connecticut, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont have 

the lowest rates of segregated special class 

placement. On the other hand, Connecticut 

joins New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland 

with the highest rates of placements in 

special facilities (special schools or residential 

programs); 12 states have fewer than 1 percent 

of their population in separate facilities, and 

Chapter 2: National Placement Data

States with the highest rates of 

placing students in separate classes 

are California, Hawaii, New York, 

and New Mexico; . . . Connecticut 

joins New Jersey, Massachusetts, 

and Maryland with the highest rates 

of placements in special facilities 

(special schools or residential 

programs).

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 23
the Pacific Islands do not have any students in 

separate facilities.

Disproportionate Placement 

Practices across Disability Labels

Table 2 in the Appendix compares the placement 

of students in general education 80 percent of 

the time or more by disability category from 

2005 to 2015. In the 2015–2016 school year, 

students with intellectual disabilities and multiple 

disabilities participated in general education 

classes with peers without disabilities at rates 

far lower than any other population: at 17 percent 

and 13 percent respectively, with little to no 

difference over the 

past 10 years. Students 

most likely to spend the 

most time in general 

education settings are 

students with speech/

language impairments, 

at a rate relatively similar 

to that of 2005; followed 

by students with other health impairments 

and specific learning disabilities, both groups 

increasing the proportion of students included in 

general education by 10 percent or more over the 

past 10 years.

Smith examined state level trends between 

1992 and 2003 for students with intellectual 

disability.43 The gap between the then most 

inclusive state (Vermont) and the most 

restrictive state (Utah) was substantial and 

remained so over time. Kurth44 similarly found 

a wide gap across states for students with 

autism, and concluded that states west of the 

Mississippi River tend to be more inclusive of 

this population than states in the east. Brock 

and Schaefer45 used state level data in Ohio 

to map the restrictiveness of placements, and 

discovered that students in urban districts spent 

less time in general education classrooms than 

their more rural counterparts. This discrepancy 

was further impacted by size: districts with the 

largest enrollments placed proportionately fewer 

students in general education settings.

A more recent examination of national 

trends by Morningstar, Kurth, and Johnson46

focused on placement data for students with 

“significant disabilities” (autism, intellectual 

disability, multiple disabilities, and Deaf and 

hard of hearing, or blindness). For students with 

disabilities other than those with significant 

disabilities, there was 

an increasing trend 

toward placement 

in general education 

classes for 80 percent or 

more of the school day. 

Students with significant 

disabilities were more 

likely to be in separate 

classes, and the most prevalent setting for 

students with intellectual and multiple disabilities 

was separate special education classrooms, with 

little change during a 15-year period.

Regional forums and interviews validated 

the wide variation in student experiences and 

the extent to which families felt they needed to 

advocate for their children. One parent of a high 

school student with significant support needs 

reported that her son participates in general 

education academic classes and other high 

school activities throughout his day, where he 

has both learning and social opportunities with 

peers without disabilities: music classes, a school 

job, team sports, and extracurricular activities at 

his neighborhood high school. This parent said:

In the 2015–2016 school year, 

students with intellectual disabilities 

and multiple disabilities participated 

in general education classes with 

peers without disabilities at rates far 

lower than any other population . . .

24 National Council on Disability
Our son is 20 years old. And there were 

19 IEP team members. All came on time . . . 

We talked about placement. We talked 

about what his schedule would look like. . . . 

every person at that team was sitting up 

straight, paying attention, and truly excited 

about planning out our son’s transition 

program. And they were extremely 

supportive . . . I couldn’t be happier.47

Other parents, however, cite their ongoing 

struggles at IEP meetings throughout the 

school year as they tried to obtain and maintain 

inclusive placements, 

particularly for children 

with intellectual 

and developmental 

disabilities. Two different 

parents interviewed 

for this report who had 

children with Down 

syndrome described 

how they had to 

constantly work with 

their school, sometimes “one teacher at a time” 

to convince them that they should try the less 

restrictive placement. These parents regularly 

dealt with teams that recommended a special 

class placement, sometimes regardless of a 

student’s progress in a less restrictive setting 

or the student and family’s preferences. One of 

these parents noted that each and every year 

she needed to be heavily involved in her son’s 

education, and that “a lot of my friends didn’t 

include their kids because they couldn’t do the 

work.”48 The other parent similarly lamented that 

other parents did not have the ability, resources, 

or stamina to promote inclusive placements 

for their children: “We know that parents have 

chosen not to fight or even prefer their children 

to be in a more segregated setting . . . I wish it 

wasn’t easy for people to give up. For some, they 

can’t fight the system anymore.”49

Disproportionate Placement across 

Racial/Ethnic Groups

Table 3 in the Appendix provides data from 2005 

and 2015, tracking the placement of students 

with disabilities in general education 80 percent 

of the time or more, for students of different 

racial groups and ethnicities. While the proportion 

of students attending general education classes 

for 80 percent or more 

of the day has increased 

across all categories of 

race and ethnicity over 

time, discrepancies 

between racial and ethnic 

groups persist. White 

students and Native 

American students 

continue to be included 

in general education 

classrooms more often than African American 

students, Asian students, and those from the 

Pacific Islands, including Hawaii. Most troubling, 

because variables other than child-related factors 

(such as IQ or communication skills) appear 

to be at play in placement decisions. Kurth, 

Mastergeorge, and Paschall50 extended Kurth’s 

earlier analysis of placements for students 

with autism by looking at the demographic, 

economic, and educational variables associated 

with placements. States were clustered into four 

groups: highly inclusive, moderately inclusive, 

moderately restrictive, and highly restrictive. 

They found that highly inclusive states tended 

to have more rural, White, and educated adults. 

White students and Native 

American students continue to 

be included in general education 

classrooms more often than African 

American students, Asian students, 

and those from the Pacific Islands, 

including Hawaii.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 25
They suggested that African American students 

with autism are disproportionately placed in more 

restrictive educational settings.

As a result of concerns with the 

overrepresentation of certain racial groups in 

special education identification and removals 

from general education, IDEA regulations were 

amended in January 2017 to promote equity in 

education by ensuring that states identify LEAs 

with significant disproportionality and that “[s]

tates assist LEAs in ensuring that children with 

disabilities are properly identified for services, 

receive necessary services in the least restrictive 

environment, and are not disproportionately 

removed from their educational placements by 

disciplinary removals.”51 This includes not only 

disciplinary removals (i.e., suspensions) but also 

restrictive placements.

26 National Council on Disability
Federal Policy Letters and Guidance

OSEP regularly issues policy letters and 

Dear Colleague Letters (DCLs) to clarify 

legal requirements and provide guidance 

on systemic issues. A number of major policy 

letters or guidance related to the placement 

of students with disabilities and removal from 

educational settings available to all other children 

have been issued in the past 20 years:

■ In 1994, the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) issued 

a memo on the relationship of the LRE 

requirements to inclusion. Noting that 

the term “inclusion” is not mentioned 

in IDEA, they emphasized the need for 

“individualized inquiry into the unique 

educational needs of each disabled 

student in determining the possible range 

of aids and supports that are needed 

to facilitate the student’s placement in 

the regular educational environment 

before a more restrictive placement is 

considered.” Specifically, they noted 

that placement decisions based solely 

on the following factors are prohibited: 

category of disability, severity of disability, 

configuration of delivery system, availability 

of educational or related services, 

availability of space, or administrative 

convenience.52

■ In February 2012, OSEP issued a DCL 

reiterating that the LRE requirements of 

IDEA apply to the placement of preschool 

children with disabilities, recommending 

that LEAs “that do not have a public 

preschool program that can provide all 

the appropriate services and supports for 

a particular child with a disability must 

explore alternative methods to ensure that 

the LRE requirements are met for that 

child” and recommend that “a variety of 

strategies, including staffing configurations, 

community collaboration models, and 

professional development activities that 

promote expanded preschool options are 

available.”53

■ In September 2015, the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 

ED issued a joint policy statement providing 

extensive recommendations to states and 

LEAs regarding inclusion in early childhood 

programs. HHS and ED cited the need to 

create a culture of inclusion based on legal 

and scientific data, and outlined specific 

steps to guide states and local agencies to 

ensure that the expectations and supports 

Chapter 3: Federal and State Response

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 27
needed for children with disabilities are 

always considered with those of other 

children.54

■ On November 16, 2015, OSEP issued 

a DCL that clarified the interpretation 

of “general education curriculum” for 

students with IEPs. OSEP emphasized 

that the IEP is intended to support 

instruction and access to the general 

education curriculum rather than to create 

an alternate curriculum. Recognizing that 

some children with significant cognitive 

disabilities perform significantly below their 

grade level, the letter guides IEP teams to 

select goals that are aligned with, and are 

pre-requisite for, grade level standards, and 

estimate the extent of growth expected 

during the course of a year. The purpose 

of the DCL was to “ensure that annual 

IEP goals for these children reflect high 

expectations and are based on the State’s 

content standards for the grade in which a 

child is enrolled.”55

■ In August 2016, noting concerns with the 

rates of disciplinary removal, particularly 

for children of color with disabilities, 

OSERS issued significant guidance 

through a DCL to clarify that children 

with disabilities must receive appropriate 

behavioral supports to receive a free, 

appropriate public education in LRE. The 

letter describes alternatives to disciplinary 

removal, including a system of tiered 

behavior supports, warning that a failure 

to provide behavioral supports could 

result in an inappropriately restrictive 

placement.56

■ On January 9, 2017, OSERS issued a DCL 

to affirm the need for young children with 

disabilities to access inclusive high-quality 

early childhood programs to enable them 

to meet high expectations, noting that the 

expansion of early childhood programs has 

not been accompanied by a proportionate 

expansion of inclusive options. Reiterating 

the legal requirement for presuming that the 

first placement consideration be the regular 

public preschool program that a child would 

attend if the child did not have a disability, 

OSERS encouraged state and local agencies 

to plan to expand inclusive options.57

State Regulations and Guidance

Unsurprisingly, given that there is great variation 

across states in placement practices, there 

is a wide range of publicly available policy 

and guidance related to LRE decision making 

between states. In Table 1 of the Appendix, the 

50 states and 10 territories are ranked in order 

of the rate at which they educate students with 

disabilities in general education for 80 percent 

or more of the time. For ease of viewing, the 

rankings are divided into quantiles. The following 

list shows publicly available regulations, policy, 

or other guidance for educating students with 

disabilities in LRE from six states that were 

randomly selected: two from the quartile with the 

most inclusive practices, two from the quartile 

with the most segregated practices, and one 

each from each of the middle quartiles:

28 National Council on Disability
Random Sample of Publicly Available State Policy Guidance for 

Educating Students with Disabilities in LRE

■ Nebraska includes students with disabilities at a rate of 75 percent, with only 7 percent 

of students, ages 6–21, removed for more than 60 percent of the time. In addition to state 

regulations, Nebraska Department of Education has an extensive technical assistance 

guide for IEP development and offers nine questions for teams to ask when making 

placement decisions. Nebraska state guidance includes some questions that seem to go 

beyond IDEA requirements, such as: “Would the student require so much of the general 

education teacher’s time that the teacher cannot give adequate attention to the needs of 

other students in the classroom?” and “Does the student require the curriculum to be 

modified so significantly that it bears little relation to the instruction in the classroom?” The 

guidance includes a caution that: “A child or youth with disabilities is never to be placed 

in a particular educational setting based solely upon the disability category or on the staff, 

space and/or services currently available at a school.”58

■ Florida includes 72 percent of its students with disabilities in general education for 

80 percent of the time or more, and has 14 percent of its students removed for more than 

60 percent of the time. Interestingly, the Florida statute provides a definition for inclusion:

A school district shall use the term “inclusion” to mean that a student is receiving 

education in a general education regular class setting, reflecting natural proportions 

and age-appropriate heterogeneous groups in core academic and elective or special 

areas within the school community; a student with a disability is a valued member 

of the classroom and school community; the teachers and administrators support 

universal education and have knowledge and support available to enable them to 

effectively teach all children; and a teacher is provided access to technical assistance 

in best practices, instructional methods, and supports tailored to the student’s needs 

based on current research.59

The Florida statute also requires each school district to complete a Best Practices in 

Inclusive Education Indicators self-assessment to evaluate and plan improvements in 

inclusive practices.

■ Kansas has 69 percent of its students with disabilities participating in general education 

settings for 80 percent of the time or more, and 7 percent are educated outside of general 

education for more than 60 percent of the time. The Kansas Department of Education 

publishes an extensive handbook for special education, which includes a chapter on 

(continued)

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 29
educational placement.60 For the team to make placement changes after the initial IEP, 

“parents must provide consent for any substantial change in placement (more than 25% 

of the child’s school day) or material change in services (increase or decrease of 25% or 

more of the duration or frequency of a special education service, a related service, or a 

supplementary aid or a service).”

■ Pennsylvania includes 62 percent of its students with disabilities for 80 percent or 

more of the time, with 10 percent of students removed from general education more 

than 60 percent of the time. The Pennsylvania Department of Education relies on a 2002 

publication as a resource for making educational placement decisions.61 It restricts schools 

from refusing general education placements for any of the following reasons:

❍ the student cannot do the same work at the same level as the other students in the 

regular education class if the student can make meaningful progress on the goals in 

their IEP in a regular education class;

❍ the placement would be more expensive or inconvenient to the school;

❍ the student has a certain type of disability or because the disability is severe in the 

school’s view (e.g., a school cannot have a policy that places all students with autism in 

an autistic support classroom);

❍ there is no room in the regular classroom for more students, but there is room in the 

special education classroom; and/or

❍ the curriculum used in that classroom has to be modified for the student because of 

their disability.

Oddly, though, in a discussion of classroom space, it notes that “using an old storage 

closet for a special education classroom may be a violation of the law,” and that classrooms 

must be close to the ebb and flow of school activities. In addition, it allows a three-year 

age span for students placed in elementary special education classrooms and a four-year 

age span for students in secondary special education classes. So, further investigation may 

be needed into these topics.

■ Washington falls in the most restrictive quartile, including only 55 percent of its students 

with IEPs and removing 13 percent of students from general education 60 percent or more 

of the time. The recently published rules for the provision of special education reflects 

IDEA language. Limited guidance for families is offered,62 though no other Washingtonissued resources could be found.

Random Sample of Publicly Available State Policy Guidance for 

Educating Students with Disabilities in LRE, continued

30 National Council on Disability
■ New Jersey is the third most segregated of the U.S. states and territories when it comes 

to including students with disabilities for at least 80 percent of the time. In New Jersey, 

only 46 percent of its students with disabilities included 80 percent or more of the time, 

and 15 percent spent more than 60 percent of their day in special education settings. 

Following years of litigation brought by advocates against the New Jersey Department 

of Education, claiming that students with disabilities were not being educated in LRE, 

a settlement agreement was reached in January 2014.63 It required a statewide needs 

assessment, three years of training and technical assistance regarding LRE (including 

specific topic areas for designated districts), designation of state and local personnel 

to provide local assistance, and regular monitoring. While the agreement focused on 

attempts to change educator knowledge and practice, there was no attention to the state 

administrative code, which extensively details service delivery options and a variety of 

special education (group) programs. For example, the code defines the following:

❍ Supplementary instruction is provided in addition to general education instruction in one 

or more subjects and provided individually or in small groups by a teacher certified in the 

subject area or level. This instruction can be provided through in-class programs or pullout programs.

❍ Replacement resource programs offer specialized instruction in a single subject area by 

a certified special education teacher through an in-class resource program or pull out 

replacement program. “Instruction in more than one subject areas may be provided in a 

pull-out resource program.”64

There are serious contradictions within the code related to who can provide specialized 

instruction or how many subjects can be addressed in such a program. Other programs 

for students based on disability label (e.g., severe to profound cognitive disabilities) are 

referenced in the code, and group sizes for various programs are prescribed (e.g., three 

students for an autism program without an aide and four to six students with an aide); 

further distinctions in staffing programs made on the basis of whether students have, 

for example, “mild,” “moderate,” or “severe” disabilities. Such descriptions clearly lead 

educators to consider special education as a group program based on the type and severity 

of a disability label. Language in the code also sets the expectation that students of similar 

behavioral or academic needs should be grouped together: “A special class program 

shall serve students who have similar intensive educational, behavioral, and other needs 

related to their disabilities in accordance with their individualized education program.” 

Random Sample of Publicly Available State Policy Guidance for 

Educating Students with Disabilities in LRE, continued

(continued)

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 31
Monitoring and Technical Assistance

In addition to tracking rates of inclusion, ED 

makes efforts to hold states accountable for 

IDEA’s LRE requirements by determining whether 

states are meeting procedural requirements. ED 

reviews “compliance” indicators (e.g., timelines 

for evaluations, due process hearings, and 

transitioning children into preschool services) 

and “results” indicators 

(e.g., percent of students 

dropping out of high 

school, participation on 

statewide assessments, 

and percent of children 

served in inclusive vs. segregated settings). 

Directions for states on how to submit annual 

performance reports (APRs) and other related 

documents can be found on the OSEP website.66

ED makes annual determinations for each state, 

and categorizes states according to the level 

of assistance they need (e.g., no assistance/

meets requirements, needs assistance, needs 

intervention for one or multiple years, or needs 

substantial intervention). A report prepared by 

the National Center for Systemic Improvement 

for OSEP detailed the progress states were 

making toward Indicator 5 (LRE)67 and Indicator 6 

And: “The nature and intensity of the student’s educational needs shall determine whether 

the student is placed in a program that addresses moderate to severe cognitive disabilities 

or severe to profound cognitive disabilities,” and programs for students with learning 

disabilities are categorized as “mild to moderate” or “severe” with correspondingly 

different teacher-student ratio requirements.65 Taken as a whole, it is easy to see how 

New Jersey LEAs are designing restrictive settings in violation of the IDEA requirements.

Random Sample of Publicly Available State Policy Guidance for 

Educating Students with Disabilities in LRE, continued

(Preschool LRE).68 The authors concluded that 

there is very little change or progress and little 

movement toward realizing IDEA’s mandate of 

LRE and inclusion over time.

Despite the complex determination 

procedures and extensive reporting 

requirements for states, ED is not holding 

states accountable for their failures to uphold 

the IDEA’s LRE 

requirements. Annual 

targets are based on 

only slight improvements 

over previous years, 

and setting minimum 

thresholds for the percentage of students who 

should be in any setting conflicts with IDEA’s 

requirement that each child’s IEP is based on 

their individual needs. For example, despite New 

Jersey’s low levels of educating students with 

disabilities with their peers without disabilities 

in general education settings, they were 

determined by ED to “meet requirements,”69

even when their annual LRE targets were not 

achieved and, in fact, the percent of students 

who were educated in general education 

classes was lower in 2013 than in the preceding 

three years.70

ED is not holding states accountable 

for their failures to uphold the 

IDEA’s LRE requirements.

32 National Council on Disability
Continuum of Placements

T

here is more than a little controversy 

about the LRE continuum in terms of 

its philosophy related to an equitable 

education and how it actually impacts students 

with disabilities. In 2004, Taylor proposed 

replacing the LRE requirements with a policy 

for the integration of people with disabilities, to 

encourage and cultivate relationships between 

people with disabilities and those without 

disabilities. He discusses flaws in the LRE 

continuum philosophy that can result in limiting 

integrated life experiences. Among those flaws 

are the following:71

■ Linear restrictiveness. The idea that the 

continuum is often thought to be a linear 

representation as defined by the amount 

of time that students are in or out of the 

general education classroom. Implicit in 

this concept is the notion that students 

require services located somewhere along 

this arbitrary line, and as they develop 

more independent skills might be able to 

transition to less restrictive placements. 

This construct ignores the evidence that 

for many students the supports and 

services they need can be provided in a 

less restrictive setting. The intensity of the 

services required does not by necessity 

lead to a requirement for restrictiveness. 

Furthermore, there is an assumption that 

placement in a restrictive setting inherently 

equates greater levels of quality of services 

and support, for which there is no evidence.

■ Readiness for inclusion. Decisions to move 

students to less restrictive placements are 

often based on the perceived readiness of the 

student to learn grade level material. Separate 

programs for students with behavioral 

challenges often include a requirement that 

students “earn” increased participation in 

regular school environments and activities 

through demonstration of specific behavior 

and conduct. This discriminatory practice 

places the burden on students to develop 

normative behavior and skills in a nonnormative setting rather than placing the 

burden on educators to devise appropriate 

interventions. “The irony is that the most 

restrictive placements do not prepare people 

for the least restrictive placements.”72

■ Confusion of service with placement.

The philosophy of a continuum assumes 

that students need to be removed from 

the general education classroom to 

receive more intensive services. However, 

intensity of service and segregation from 

peers are two different dimensions, and 

Chapter 4: Challenges to Inclusive General 

Education Placement

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 33
not necessarily related, particularly when 

the quality of instruction and services in 

inclusive versus segregated settings are 

compared. In an analysis of more than 

2,000 articles,73 Rix, Sheehy, FletcherCampbell, Crisp, and Harper found that the 

level of intensity of educational services 

provided to students with disabilities was 

not synonymous with participation in, 

or segregation from, general education 

classes and 

instruction on the 

general education 

curriculum. They 

also suggest that 

recognizing one end 

of the placement 

continuum as 

“inclusive” (i.e., the 

general education 

class) does not 

stop that placement from actually being 

isolating or exclusive. Similarly, considering 

alternate self-contained special education 

placements as special “does not mean that 

it [the placement] is doing anything that is 

special or different from that which is done 

elsewhere.”

Sauer and Jorgensen elaborate on the 

flaws in the LRE mandate and the requirement 

for a continuum, noting the disproportionate 

segregation of certain students with disabilities, 

such as students with intellectual disabilities, 

results in disproportionately limited school 

experiences. They link the cultural practice 

of segregating students with more obvious 

disabilities or intensive support needs to 

society’s devaluation of disability, also known 

as “ableism.”74 The LRE continuum provides a 

rationale for taking away opportunities from a 

group of students, those with disabilities, and 

assumes a hierarchical value for who may go to 

their neighborhood school or school of choice. 

Sauer and Jorgensen also note the idiosyncratic 

nature of placement decision making, based 

on school traditions, teacher skills, strength 

of parent advocacy, and sometimes funding. 

To a large extent, the LRE continuum places a 

burden of fitting in or being able to access the 

classroom on the student 

who is seen as having 

deficits, rather than 

encouraging schools to 

create systems designed 

to benefit all students 

in the community and 

make access by those 

with disabilities more 

seamless.

Attitudes and Beliefs

The driving force behind a student’s educational 

experience might be an understanding of roles 

and the attitudes that educators have about 

adult responsibilities and expectations for 

student outcomes. A teacher described her 

frustration when general classroom teachers 

send students with disabilities to a computer 

“to get them out of the way.” She said “. . . it is 

very important for these children to feel like a 

part of the classroom . . . Because (a student) 

needs different strategies doesn’t mean he 

needs to be removed or put in the back of the 

class.”75 A parent of twins with disabilities was 

faced with the option of choosing between two 

early childhood programs. He described the 

importance of a teacher’s willingness to try: 

at a placement meeting, the teacher “made a 

[T]he LRE continuum places a 

burden of fitting in or being able to 

access the classroom on the student 

who is seen as having deficits, 

rather than encouraging schools to 

create systems designed to benefit 

all students in the community . . .

34 National Council on Disability
comment that sold the deal—she looked at my 

wife and me (after understanding my twins’ 

special needs) and said, ‘I want your children in 

my classroom.’”76 One principal described her 

efforts to assist teachers who are not prepared 

to collaborate and deliver specialized instruction 

in general education settings: “Some teachers 

think more ‘help’ is in the self-contained class, 

but they are just thinking someone else has 

a better answer . . . Segregation makes the 

building run smoother . . . (but) leadership needs 

to be the proponent of inclusion and not allow 

segregation.”77

Organizational Traditions

Once school districts have made financial and 

personnel investments in creating or maintaining 

segregated settings and allocating teachers 

and other staff in small 

teacher-student ratios, 

there is an organizational 

tendency to maintain 

the status quo. Ryndak, 

Taub, Jorgensen, GonsierGerdin, Arndt, Sauer, 

Ruppar, Morningstar, 

and Allcock78 suggest that given the relatively 

stagnant rate of change in student placements 

over time, the LRE principle “legitimizes 

segregated settings as acceptable for some 

students.”79 While the LRE requirement should 

lead schools to make objective decisions 

based on data, this does not seem to be the 

case, considering the variation in placement 

patterns across states, the disproportionate 

segregation of students with certain disabilities 

(e.g., autism and intellectual disabilities), and 

the disproportionate segregation of students of 

color by both race and disability, as noted in this 

report. Ryndak et al. emphasize that the LRE 

principle supporting a continuum of placements 

perpetuates the misrepresentation of special 

education as a location, rather than supports and 

services to make progress in the curriculum, and 

the misperception that more intensive service 

needs require more restrictive placements.

Organizational and Workforce 

Capacity

When schools have a clear vision for including all 

students with disabilities, they work to develop 

schoolwide structures that support educators 

and empower them to succeed in instructing 

students with disabilities through collaboration. 

One advocate interviewed for this report noted 

that the “systemic challenges are less about 

placement and more about best and evidencebased practices: how 

to differentiate, how to 

manage the classroom. 

Those are the biggest 

challenges for teachers.”80

Most stakeholders 

expressed frustration 

with teachers and school 

personnel not being qualified or trained to 

deal with behavioral problems. They described 

how students who experience bullying (often 

because of disability-related factors) led to an 

increase in behavioral reactions from the child 

with a disability. They describe how a negative 

school environment exacerbates problem 

behavior, resulting in multiple and unnecessary 

suspensions, without proactive behavior support 

planning. “Rather than reaching a consensus 

through . . . behavioral assessment, often 

the child is pushed out through suspension 

or expulsion.” One parent described the 

“Segregation makes the building 

run smoother . . . (but) leadership 

needs to be the proponent 

of inclusion and not allow 

segregation.”

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 35
“environmental controls” that a teacher put in 

place: “a cardboard box on his desk so that he 

is separated from others in the classroom, . . . 

to a makeshift cubicle in the hallway, separated 

from other classrooms.”81 Another parent 

described her child being “placed in a corner 

of the classroom away from all of the other 

activities. Facing the 

wall throughout the day 

and unable to sit for the 

full day.”82 When a child 

is frequently removed 

from the classroom, they 

are missing valuable 

instructional time and the 

opportunity to develop 

the type of social skills and relationships needed 

to become full and participating members of 

society. When a child is segregated within the 

classroom or placed in a hall as a disciplinary 

action, there is no teaching moment and only 

negative stigma. More than one parent reported 

that they believed their child “could be doing a lot 

better if the school had identified and addressed 

his issues” rather than administering negative 

discipline.83

While having a teacher’s aide assigned to a 

student might seem to some as a support, to 

others an aide is seen as a barrier to both quality 

instruction as well as social inclusion. One parent 

reported: “I felt he didn’t need it (the aide) as 

much, and it allowed the teachers not to take 

ownership for teaching him. We wanted him to 

have independence from having an aide.”84 An 

extra adult assigned to a student, especially as 

the student enters high school, poses a barrier to 

natural peer interactions. 

There is little evidence 

supporting the value 

of one-to-one aides in 

improving participation or 

performance of students 

with disabilities. To the 

contrary, Giangreco 

reports:

. . . there is a substantial amount of 

data documenting that overreliance on 

paraprofessionals can lead to a wide range 

of inadvertent detrimental effects, such 

as unhealthy dependency, stigmatization, 

interference with teacher engagement, and 

interference with peer interactions.85

Additionally, Azad, Locke, Downey, Xie, and 

Mandell found that child-specific aides were only 

engaged in support or instruction for 57 percent 

of class time.86

One parent described the 

“environmental controls” that a 

teacher put in place: “a cardboard 

box on his desk so that he is 

separated from others in the 

classroom . . .”

36 National Council on Disability
J

ust as the law does not define special 

education as a place, but rather the 

configuration of services and supports 

as defined in a student’s IEP, inclusion is not 

a place, but rather a systemic approach to 

uniquely addressing student learning and social 

engagement within the same instructional 

frameworks and settings designed for the whole 

school community. For example, Skrtic, Sailor, 

and Gee defined inclusive schooling as a system 

of supports to address 

the needs of a subset 

of students.87 Artiles 

and Kozleski describe 

inclusive education as 

an “equity movement” 

supported by research 

in effective teaching 

and service delivery, 

and a focus on equity 

within whole-school 

restructuring to create school communities in 

which all students are valued.88 Olson, Leko, 

and Roberts89 describe inclusion as a school 

culture in which educators share instructional 

responsibilities, collaborate in teaching teams, 

and believe that general education classes 

and other contexts are most appropriate for all 

students. Within this school culture, students 

with disabilities engage in the same instructional 

activities as their peers of all abilities and 

are viewed positively by their peers without 

disabilities. McLeskey, Waldron, Spooner, and 

Algozzine90 describe inclusive schools as places 

where students are in the same classes and 

schools as their same-age peers, are “valued 

and active participants[,] and where they are 

provided supports needed to succeed in the 

academic, social, and extra-curricular activities 

of the school.”91 Examples of the type of 

inclusion interactions 

contemplated by these 

authors can be seen in 

videos created by the 

SWIFT Center, such as 

Whatever it Takes filmed 

by Dan Habib in schools 

in Oregon, Mississippi, 

and Maryland.92 In these 

videos, students with a 

variety of differences, 

including complex physical and intellectual 

disabilities, can be seen alongside peers in typical 

classrooms.

Benefits to Students with Disabilities

Data shows us that when students are included, 

they have more access to the general curriculum 

and effective instruction, they achieve at higher 

rates of academic performance, and they acquire 

Chapter 5: The Research Base: Why Include Students 

with Disabilities

[W]hen students are included, they 

have more access to the general 

curriculum and effective instruction, 

they achieve at higher rates of 

academic performance, and they 

acquire better social and behavioral 

outcomes.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 37
better social and behavioral outcomes.93 In 

addition, when educated in inclusive classrooms, 

peers without disabilities experience either a 

positive academic and social impact or at least 

no negative impact on academic achievement.94

Since 1990, research studies have demonstrated 

a variety of benefits for students with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities who are educated 

in general education classes. Membership and 

participation benefits include increased student 

engagement,95 improved communication,96

improved expressive language and literacy 

skills,97 more satisfying and diverse friendships,98

higher levels of social engagement with peers 

without disabilities,99 less disruptive behavior,100

and more social competence.101 The National 

Longitudinal Transition Study examined the 

outcomes of 11,000 students with a range of 

disabilities, and found that more time spent in 

a general education classroom was positively 

correlated with a) fewer absences from school, 

b) fewer referrals for disruptive behavior, and c) 

better outcomes after high school in the areas of 

employment and independent living.102

Although students with extensive support 

needs (i.e., students with intellectual disabilities, 

multiple disabilities, autism) have higher rates of 

segregated schooling, research shows that these 

students actually acquire more academic benefits 

when included in general education instruction, 

particularly increases in literacy skills.103 Hehir 

et al. describe several studies that demonstrate 

significant improvement for students with 

disabilities who require extensive supports in the 

areas of language and math who spent a larger 

portion of their day in general education classes 

38 National Council on Disability
with peers without disabilities—compared to 

those who spent a smaller proportion of their 

school day with peers without disabilities in 

general education classes.104

Benefits to Students without 

Disabilities

A large-scale study by Waldron, Cole, and Majd 

demonstrated that students without disabilities 

made comparable or greater gains in math and 

reading when taught in general education classes 

with students who had learning disabilities and 

were engaged in the same instruction;105 a few 

other studies also found a positive impact on 

the academic achievement of peers without 

disabilities when students with and without 

disabilities are taught together.106 A recent 

review of international research discovered 

that the vast majority of studies conducted 

in the United States, Australia, Canada, and 

Ireland demonstrated either a positive effect 

or no negative effect on the academic, social, 

and personal development of students without 

disabilities when they were educated with 

peers who had intellectual, learning, or other 

disabilities.107

Other benefits to students without disabilities 

who learn in general education classes with 

students who need extensive supports include 

reduced fear of human differences, increased 

comfort and awareness of differences, growth 

in social cognition, improvements in selfconcept, growth of ethical principles, and 

caring friendships.108 Teachers, parents, and 

para-educators also believe that students 

without disabilities benefit when educated with 

peers who have extensive support needs by 

developing greater empathy, greater awareness 

and tolerance of differences, learning to help 

others, and acquiring specific skills (e.g., sign 

language).109

Opportunity to Learn: Special Versus 

Regular Classes

Early studies, such as those described by 

Helmstetter et al., found that teachers in general 

education classes offer more instruction, a 

comparable amount of 1:1 instructional time, 

more academic content, and are more likely 

to use peers without disabilities to support 

instruction than teachers in special education 

classes. When comparing special versus regular 

education classes, they found significant 

differences in the amount of time spent in 

noninstructional activity: in special education 

classes, 58 percent of the time was not devoted 

to instruction, in contrast with only 35 percent 

of noninstructional time in general education 

classes.110 Along these lines, Soukup, Wehmeyer, 

Bashinski, and Boyaird found that students who 

spent a greater amount of time in the general 

education classroom worked more of the time 

on grade-level standards and were more likely to 

have higher access to the general curriculum than 

students with low general education participation 

rates.111

In an analysis of self-contained classes, 

Kurth, Born, and Love examined special 

education classes that were spacious, wellstaffed by educators and paraprofessionals, 

and supplied with adequate resources. Despite 

these supports and resources, they found a 

remarkable lack of time that students spent in 

instruction, and the instruction that did occur 

was provided primarily by paraprofessionals. 

There were few opportunities for students 

to respond to instructional cues, a high level 

of distractions in the classroom, a lack of 

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 39
communication supports for students, and a lack 

of individualization of instruction.112 In contrast, 

McDonnell, Thorson, and McQuivey compared 

the instructional contexts for students with 

and without disabilities in general education 

setting. They found that in general education 

settings, students with 

disabilities were 13 

times more likely than 

their peers without 

disabilities to receive 

instruction directed 

exclusively toward them 

during whole-class 

activities, and 23 times more likely to receive 1:1 

instruction when educated in general education 

classes.113

Research consistently paints a picture that 

depicts students with disabilities who are educated 

in segregated special education placements 

as receiving less 

instruction, having fewer 

opportunities to learn, 

and fewer opportunities 

to use knowledge and 

skills during instruction 

and other meaningful 

activities.

[I]n general education settings, 

students with disabilities were . . . 

23 times more likely to receive 

1:1 instruction when educated in 

general education classes.

40 National Council on Disability
Chapter 6: The Research Base: Strategies That 

Promote Effective Inclusive Education

J

ust as researchers have studied the impact 

of inclusive education placements on 

students with and without disabilities, 

they have also studied instructional strategies to 

determine what works and what organizational 

systems are likely to sustain inclusive education 

over time. The following are a sample of the 

research-based practices that show evidence of 

leading to positive academic and/or behavioral 

outcomes for all students, especially those likely 

to be marginalized by 

their differences from the 

majority of students.

Universal Design 

for Learning

Universal design for 

learning (UDL) is a set of 

frameworks that shifts 

education planning from considering barriers 

to learning as existing within the student to 

understanding the barriers presented by curricula 

that are not designed for the variety of student 

learning needs in a diverse school community. UDL 

reimagines the role of the teacher as a thoughtful 

designer of the class environment, curricula, 

instruction, and materials in order to remove or 

reduce potential barriers to learning. Research on 

UDL has promise for addressing the needs of all 

students. Nelson and Johnson describe studies 

on a variety of UDL strategies that facilitate the 

academic learning for students with disabilities.114

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning requires students to work 

with their peers to accomplish a shared or 

common goal within a classroom lesson. The 

goal is reached through interdependence among 

all group members rather than working alone. 

Many early studies 

(e.g., Slavin 1984) found 

cooperative learning 

had a positive effect on 

student achievement, 

as well as improved 

the social acceptance 

and friendships among 

students with disabilities 

and their peers without disabilities.115 More 

recently, Copeland and Cosbey reported that 

cooperative learning strategies were effective for 

improving social and academic skills for students 

with intellectual disabilities while having no 

negative impact on students who do not have 

an IEP.116 It is notable that Causton-Theoharis, 

Theoharis, Orsati, and Cosier found that in 

the self-contained classrooms, there was little 

opportunity for cooperative learning to occur.117

UDL reimagines the role of the 

teacher as a thoughtful designer of 

the class environment, curricula, 

instruction, and materials in order to 

remove or reduce potential barriers 

to learning.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 41
Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is a process to teach 

students of differing abilities in the same class to 

maximize each student’s growth and individual 

success by meeting each student at their current 

skill level rather than expecting students catch 

up to the curriculum.118 Huebner reports that 

a growing body of research shows positive 

results for differentiated instruction in mixedability classrooms and cites several studies 

that confirm the benefits of differentiation for 

learners of varying abilities.119 For example, 

Baumgartner, Lipowski, and Rush evaluated 

the use of differentiation, including flexible 

grouping, student choice of learning tasks, selfselected reading time, 

and access to a variety 

of texts on a program 

to improve reading 

achievement among 

elementary and middle 

school students. All 

students improved their 

decoding, phonemic, and 

comprehension skills, and their attitudes about 

reading and their own abilities improved.120

Data-Based Instructional Decisions

An important part of any curriculum and 

instruction is the appropriate use of student 

data to inform instruction to promote learning. 

Formative assessments are generally products 

that demonstrate student knowledge or skill, and 

are a means of involving students in assessing 

their own learning. Summative assessments 

compare student performance and progress 

to a benchmark or standard. As teachers and 

schools set policy related to student testing and 

performance measures, the goal is to ensure 

that students with disabilities—even those with 

extensive support needs—not only access the 

same content as their peers but also participate 

in an assessment system designed for them to 

demonstrate their knowledge and skills. School 

teams collaborate and analyze data to identify 

how to plan the interventions and supports for 

learners who struggle academically, behaviorally, 

socially, and emotionally.

Positive Behavior Interventions 

and Supports

One of the most common reasons for 

segregating students is behavior that interferes 

with teaching or learning or threatens harm to 

one or more students. 

If a student’s behavior 

disrupts their own 

learning or that of 

others, then that student 

is at risk for removal, 

suspension, expulsion, 

or placement in an 

alternative educational 

setting. Positive behavior interventions 

and supports (PBIS) is a proactive, positive 

schoolwide approach to teaching appropriate 

social behavior and understanding the messages 

behind the problem behavior, and has been 

demonstrated to reduce problem behavior and 

risk for removals.121 A variety of strategies for 

supporting and responding to student behavior, 

using data to determine appropriate behavior 

interventions, and developing an equitable 

school discipline approach can be found on the 

PBIS website, www.pbis.org. In addition to 

schoolwide and individually designed positive 

behavior interventions and supports122 as 

a means to prevent problem behavior and 

Positive behavior interventions 

and supports (PBIS) is a proactive, 

positive schoolwide approach to 

teaching appropriate social behavior 

and understanding the messages 

behind the problem behavior . . . 

42 National Council on Disability
teach socially appropriate behavior, there is a 

movement to shift the focus from disciplining 

behavior with punitive consequences to 

helping students understand the impact of 

their behavior. Restorative practices (RP) 

or restorative justice (RJ) emphasize the 

importance of positive relationships within the 

school as a community. These approaches are 

perceived to work best when integrated into 

the school’s overall philosophy and have the 

potential for improving student behavior and 

relationships, as well as relationships among 

teachers.123 Together, PBIS and RP have the 

potential to reduce disciplinary removals and 

keep students engaged in their school.

Peer-Assisted Learning

Peer support interventions are an effective 

alternative to traditional paraprofessional 

support models.124 Involving peers in tutoring 

or mentoring relationships can have positive 

outcomes for students with and without 

disabilities; classwide peer tutoring models 

have been shown to result in increased 

academic and social gains for students with 

and without disabilities.125 A highly researched 

strategy, peer-assisted learning (PAL) involves 

reciprocal tutoring roles, 

opportunities to respond 

and experience success, 

structured activities, and 

supplemental practice 

of skills taught in the 

core curriculum. Several 

years of studies and large-scale experiments 

have shown that PAL results in improvement in 

the reading achievement of low-, average-, and 

high-achieving students, including those with 

disabilities.126

Culturally Responsive Teaching

Culturally responsive teaching requires that 

educators value students’ cultural and linguistic 

resources and build upon this understanding, 

rather than view it as 

a barrier to learning. 

Culturally responsive 

teachers examine their 

own heritage and bias, 

and use students’ 

personal experiences 

and interests as the base upon which they 

facilitate student learning and skill development. 

As described in a recent publication from the 

CEEDAR Center, various research studies show 

the power of drawing upon students’ culture, 

Involving peers in tutoring or 

mentoring relationships can have 

positive outcomes for students with 

and without disabilities . . .

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 43
language, or other aspects of their identify (e.g., 

disability) to learn academic subjects.127

Multi-Tiered System of Supports

In the past several years, education reform efforts 

recommend response to intervention (RTI) and 

PBIS systems be braided to address the complex 

social, emotional, behavioral, and academic 

learning needs of a wide variety of learners.128

Such an integrated system emphasizes the value 

of core general education services, in a multitiered system of supports (MTSS) to determine 

the specific interventions needed for struggling 

students, within a data-informed decision 

model. It addresses students who struggle 

because of academic learning needs, students 

with disabilities, those whose first language 

is not English, students coming from cultural 

backgrounds that differ from the majority of 

families and educators in the school community, 

and students living in poverty who may have 

access to fewer resources. MTSS requires that 

administrators, district personnel, classroom 

teachers, and specialized educators work 

together in a cohesive and collaborative culture 

with shared responsibilities for all learners.129 In 

a MTSS approach, students with disabilities have 

access to a variety of academic and behavioral 

interventions, alongside their peers without 

disabilities, and removal for specific specialized 

instruction is offered as needed to address 

specific disability-related educational needs.

44 National Council on Disability
Findings

Policies

T

here has been very little change and 

little movement toward realizing IDEA’s 

mandate of LRE and inclusion over time.

Effectiveness

Inclusive special education services are more 

effective than segregated special education 

services:

■ When students are included in general 

education instruction, they have more 

access to the general curriculum and 

effective instructional methods, they achieve 

at higher rates of academic performance, 

and they acquire better social and behavioral 

outcomes.

■ When educated in “inclusive” classrooms, 

peers without disabilities experience no 

negative impact, and some studies show 

that peers without disabilities experience a 

positive academic and social impact.

■ Segregated special education 

placements offer less instruction, have 

fewer opportunities to learn, and fewer 

opportunities to use knowledge and skills 

during instruction and other meaningful 

activities.

Demographics

The extent of restrictiveness of placements is 

impacted by where students live: States in urban 

areas are more restrictive than rural areas; states 

on the east and west coast are more restrictive. 

Further, districts with the largest enrollments 

place proportionately fewer students in general 

education settings.

Disability

Students with certain disabilities are more likely 

to be educated in separate, segregated classes; 

and the most prevalent setting for students with 

intellectual and multiple disabilities was separate 

special education classrooms. While inclusive 

placements have increased over time, there is 

little to no change in placement practices for 

students with intellectual and multiple disabilities 

during the past 10 years.

Race

White students and Native American students 

continue to be included more often in general 

education classes than African American 

students, Asian students, and those from the 

Pacific Islands, including Hawaii.

ED Response

Despite the complex determination procedures 

and extensive reporting requirements for states, 

Chapter 7: Findings and Recommendations

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 45
ED is not holding states accountable for their 

failures to uphold IDEA’s LRE requirements.

■ While the LRE requirement should lead 

schools to make objective decisions based 

on data, this does not seem to be the case, 

considering the variation in placement 

patterns across states, the disproportionate 

segregation of students with certain 

disabilities (e.g., autism and intellectual 

disabilities), and the disproportionate 

segregation of students of color by both race 

and disability, as noted in this report. Further, 

ED is not offering sufficient guidance, 

incentives, or restrictions for states that 

continue to disproportionately segregate 

students with disabilities over time.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Congress

1. Fully fund IDEA to cover the cost of educating students with disabilities so that necessary 

supports and services are available to ensure full participation and learning.

2. Emphasize inclusive education expectations in the development of all funding programs. 

Strengthen expectations for full participation of students with disabilities in general 

education settings and activities with peers without disabilities.

3. Authorize and appropriate funds for competitive systems—change grants to build state 

and local capacity to implement and scale up inclusive, whole-school reforms that address 

the needs of each and every student with a focus on promoting equitable practices and 

reducing disproportionate outcomes.

4. Maintain or increase funding levels for IDEA appropriations for technical assistance and 

dissemination, personnel preparation, and state personnel development grants, and target 

funding to a) prepare teachers, administrators, and related service providers to implement 

effective schoolwide, equity-based services, and b) build state and local capacity for 

sustainable inclusive education practices.

5. Target funding for the Institute for Educational Sciences (IES) to support research to 

identify and disseminate practices that improve educational outcomes for students with 

disabilities in inclusive environments.

46 National Council on Disability
Recommendations for the U.S. Department of Education:

6. Engage in more aggressive enforcement and utilize its authority to withhold federal 

funds and make referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement for 

noncompliance with the LRE mandate of IDEA as permitted by IDEA.

7. In the presence of contemporary research that shows improved outcomes when 

students are educated in inclusive environments with evidence-based instruction and 

organizational systems, maintain data collection on the amount of time students spend in 

general education and the location of student placements.

8. Design funding for technical assistance and dissemination centers, personnel 

preparation projects, and state personnel development grants to a) prepare teachers, 

administrators, and related service providers to implement effective schoolwide, equitybased educational services, and b) build state and local capacity for sustainable inclusive 

education practices.

9. Emphasize inclusive education expectations in the development of all funding programs. 

Strengthen expectations for full participation of students with disabilities in general 

education settings and activities with peers without disabilities.

10. Design funding opportunities that result in exemplary demonstration sites, which can be 

used as national models for replication. A short list of examples of school-based, districtled, evidence-backed practices include:

■ Universal design for learning (UDL) frameworks: Support and train teachers to 

understand and employ the principals of UDL as a part of core instruction.

■ Multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS): Support states and districts in the 

development of systemic practices to include universal screening for academic, 

behavioral and mental health risk coupled with collaboratively selected and developed 

data-informed interventions within a school community. This results in opportunities 

for uniquely designed instruction to address individual student needs for all students, 

with and without disability labels.

■ Culturally responsive instruction: With a commitment to increase and maintain 

educator competence to serve diverse populations of students and families, states 

need to provide professional development and action planning based on district selfassessments.

■ Cooperative learning, flexible grouping, and collaboration: Increase instructional 

competencies to enable specialized and general educators to collaboratively plan and 

deliver instruction based on student performance and increase opportunities for small 

group instruction that supports heterogeneous peer assisted learning.

(continued)

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 47
11. Analyze state data by disability, ethnicity, and other available demographics to identify 

where subgroups of students with disabilities are in more segregated settings:

a. Prepare and widely disseminate disaggregated data reports in a timely fashion (for the 

previous school year) based on disability label, race, and geographic and demographic 

disparities.

b. Require states to address segregating placement practices, and provide technical 

assistance and incentives for states to remove group programs based on labels.

12. Develop and disseminate a resource guide of evidence-based practices that increase 

access to the general curriculum and support students, including students with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities, to fully participate with peers without 

disabilities in inclusive settings. Develop and disseminate guidance for teacher 

preparation programs emphasizing the development of general and special educator 

competencies for delivering collaborative instruction and assessment for all students, 

including students with disabilities. Include in teacher and administrator preparation 

programs knowledge and exemplars to increase school capacity to provide schoolwide 

positive academic and behavior support structures, including a positive and preventive 

approach to problem behavior.

13. Require funding for research grants (e.g., through IES) related to educating students with 

disabilities be conducted in general education settings and address improved outcomes 

in inclusive environments.

Recommendations for the U.S. Department of Education:, continued

48 National Council on Disability
APPENDIX

National and State Placement Practices

Table 1: Percent of Students Ages 6 through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B, by 

Educational Environment and State: 2015–2016

State

Inside Regular 

Class 80% or 

More of the 

Day (%)

Inside Regular 

Class 40% 

through 79% 

of the Day (%)

Inside Regular 

Class Less 

than 40% of 

the Day (%)

Separate 

School or 

Residential 

Facility (%)

Hawaii 36.83 41.32 20.24 

Guam 45.23 45.18 5.81 

New Jersey 45.99 27.30 14.72 

Montana 46.96 38.83 12.02 

New Mexico 49.80 29.44 19.19 

Illinois 52.65 26.22 13.29 

Arkansas 52.68 30.67 13.55 

California 54.07 20.05 21.54 

Washington 54.35 31.06 13.24 

Virgin Islands 54.42 22.70 17.40 

District of Columbia 55.49 16.54 17.34 

Maine 56.69 29.25 10.78 

Missouri 57.59 27.65 8.76 

New York 57.98 11.60 19.82 

Republic of Palau 58.24 26.37 13.19 

Louisiana 59.67 21.85 13.91 

Utah 60.45 25.58 11.37 

Minnesota 60.45 23.59 10.08 

Idaho 60.55 27.53 9.86 

South Carolina 60.71 20.50 16.31 

Pennsylvania 61.84 23.25 9.53 

Ohio 62.28 18.33 11.25 

Massachusetts 62.34 15.93 14.05 

Mississippi 63.02 18.41 15.10 

Virginia 63.36 20.45 11.15 

Alaska 63.39 24.61 8.84 

(continued)

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 49
State

Inside Regular 

Class 80% or 

More of the 

Day (%)

Inside Regular 

Class 40% 

through 79% 

of the Day (%)

Inside Regular 

Class Less 

than 40% of 

the Day (%)

Separate 

School or 

Residential 

Facility (%)

Nevada 63.48 19.86 14.66 

West Virginia 64.46 24.79 8.07 

Georgia 64.70 17.94 15.00 

Arizona 64.94 17.74 14.76 

Wyoming 65.38 25.39 6.49 

Iowa 65.63 22.51 8.90 

Wisconsin 66.22 21.22 9.16 

Delaware 66.34 13.05 15.10 

Michigan 66.39 15.46 10.86 

Oklahoma 66.76 22.20 9.44 

North Carolina 66.78 17.07 13.87 

Connecticut 67.74 17.67 5.21 

Texas 68.13 15.88 14.60 

Kansas 68.91 20.61 6.97 

Maryland 68.95 9.88 12.95 

South Dakota 69.21 21.57 5.64 

Rhode Island 69.51 9.94 13.17 

Puerto Rico 70.26 15.62 6.94 

Tennessee 70.46 15.67 11.11 

Indiana 71.40 12.02 10.42 

Florida 71.87 9.08 13.69 

New Hampshire 72.44 15.68 8.44 

Oregon 73.37 14.29 10.15 

Colorado 73.62 16.80 6.68 

Bureau of Indian 

Education

73.66 20.49 5.33 

Kentucky 73.73 15.47 8.28 

North Dakota 74.08 16.90 5.33 

Nebraska 75.54 12.30 6.62 

Vermont 75.76 11.96 5.72 

Alabama 83.56 6.24 7.19 

Republic of the 

Marshall Islands

83.85 12.76 x 0

Northern Marianas 84.87 8.20 2.14 

American Samoa 88.96 3.25 4.22 

50 National Council on Disability
State

Inside Regular 

Class 80% or 

More of the 

Day (%)

Inside Regular 

Class 40% 

through 79% 

of the Day (%)

Inside Regular 

Class Less 

than 40% of 

the Day (%)

Separate 

School or 

Residential 

Facility (%)

Federated States of 

Micronesia

94.41 0.94 0.31 

TOTAL: United 

States, Outlying 

Areas, and Freely 

Associated States

62.69 18.66 13.49 3

Source: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational 

Environments Collection,” 2015–2016, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/index.html. Data extracted 

as of July 14, 2016, from file specifications 002 and 089.

Table 2: Number of Students with Disabilities by Disability Label in the Total 

Special Education Population and Percent Educated at Least 80 Percent of the 

Time in General Education

2005–20061 2015–20162

Total # Students 

with Disabilities 

(SWD)

% Included 

80% or 

More (%)

# Students with 

Disabilities 

(SWD)

% Included 

80% or 

More (%)

Autism 193,875 31.3 550,405 39

Deaf-blindness 1,592 22.1 1,280 23

Developmental delay 79,072 59.5 149,306 63

Emotional disturbance 472,274 34.7 346,488 47

Hearing impairment 72,403 48.3 67,426 61

Intellectual disabilities 545,484 13.9 418,540 16

Multiple disabilities 133,974 13.3 125,232 13

Other health impairment 560,994 55.8 907,207 65

Orthopedic impairments 63,156 49.4 41,232 53

Specific learning disabilities 2,779,562 53.6 2,348,891 69

Speech or language 

impairments

1,158,664 88.0 1,044,286 86

Traumatic brain injury 23,502 40.0 25,488 50

Visual impairments 26,277 57.3 24,944 67.

All Disabilities 6,110,829 53.6 6,050,725 62.7

1

 U.S. Department of Education, 29th Report to Congress, 2010 Table 2.2, p. 174.

2 Source: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), “IDEA Part B Child Count and 

Educational Environments Collection,” 2015–2016, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/index.html.

Data extracted as of July 14, 2016, from file specifications 002 and 089.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 51
Table 3: Number of Students with Disabilities by Race in the Total Special 

Education Population and Percent Educated at Least 80 Percent of the Time 

in General Education

2005–20061 2015–20162

Total # Students 

with Disabilities 

(SWD)

% Included 

80% or 

More (%)

# Students with 

Disabilities 

(SWD)

% Included 

80% or 

More (%)

American/Alaskan Native 91,814 52.9 85,690 64

Asian/Pacific Islander 133,271 52.2 140,382 56

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. 23,420 55

Black 1,245,304 43.9 1,107,606 58

Hispanic 1,089171 47.1 1,531,699 61

White 3,551,269 59.1 2,966,782 65

Two or more races 195,147 64.

All Disabilities 6,110,829 53.6 6,050,725 62.7

1

 U.S. Department of Education, 29th Report to Congress, 2010 Table 2.2, pp. 210–219.

2 Source: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), “IDEA Part B Child Count and 

Educational Environments Collection,” 2015–2016, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/index.html.

Data extracted as of July 14, 2016, from file specifications 002 and 089.

52 National Council on Disability
Endnotes

1 UNESCO World Education Forum. Incheon Declaration Education 2030: Towards Inclusive and Equitable 

Quality Education and Lifelong Learning for All. (Incheon, Korea, 2015), accessed October 25, 2017, http://

unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002338/233813m.pdf.

2 National Council on Disability, Back to School on Civil Rights (Washington, DC: National Council on Disability, 

2000), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/7bfb3c01_5c95_4d33_94b7_

b80171d0b1bc.pdf.

3 Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975).

4 34 CFR §300.114–117.

5 U.S. Department of Education, 2016 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA (Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, revised July 10, 2016), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/

fund/data/report/idea/ideafactsheet-determinations-2016.pdf.

6 There is no demographic information from the 23 email responses.

7 University of Kansas, “Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environments (LRE),” in Part B State Performance Plan/

Annual Performance Report 2016 Indicator Analyses (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, 2016).

8 U.S. Department of Education, “IDEA Section 618 Data Products: Statistics Table,” accessed October 25, 2017, 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html.

9 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).

10 Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88–352, title VI, §601, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 252 (1964).

11 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 Fed. Supp. 

279 (1972).

12 Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972).

13 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 394 (1973).

14 Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, supra n. 3.

15 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).

16 34CFR §300.114–117.

17 34 CFR §300.39.

18 34 CFR §300.320.

19 34 CFR §300.320 (a).

20 34 CFR §300.156 (a).

21 34 CFR §300.116.

22 34 CFR §300.114.

23 34 CFR §300.107 and 117.

24 34 CFR §300.114 (a).

25 34 CFR §300.115 (a).

26 Theresa Rebhorn and Anne Smith, “LRE Decision Making (Module 15),” in Building the Legacy: IDEA Training 

Curriculum (Washington, DC: National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2008).

27 U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, “Deaf Students Education Services” (2015), accessed 

October 25, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9806.html.

28 34 CFR §300.116 (e).

29 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).

30 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).

31 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991).

32 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 53
33 Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).

34 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).

35 205 F.3d 572 (3rd Cir. 2000).

36 512 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.Conn. 2007).

37 Participant, Regional Focus Group/National Forum, 2016.

38 Interviewee, April 26, 2017.

39 Interviewee, April 19, 2017.

40 U.S. Department of Education, “IDEA Section 618 Data Products: State Level Data Files,” accessed June 28, 

2017, https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html.

41 Typically, students are enrolled in general education classes and are considered general education students 

who receive special education services. This is the only measure we have that might be considered an 

“inclusive” placement.

42 Typically, students are enrolled in special education classes and are educated in these classes for most of the 

day, but might (or might not) spend some time of the day in one or two general education classes like art, 

music or physical education.

43 Phil Smith, “Have We Made Any Progress? Including Students with Intellectual Disabilities in 

Regular Education Classrooms,” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 45 (2007): 297–309, 

doi:10.1352/0047-6765.

44 Jennifer A. Kurth, “Educational Placement of Students with Autism: The Impact of State of Residence,” Focus 

on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 30, no. 4 (2015): 249–256.

45 Matthew E. Brock and John M. Schaefer, “Location Matters: Geographic Location and Educational Placement 

of Students with Developmental Disabilities,” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 40, 

no. 2 (2015): 154–164.

46 Mary E. Morningstar, Jennifer A, Kurth, and Paul E. Johnson, “Examining National Trends in Educational 

Placements for Students with Significant Disabilities,” Remedial and Special Education 38, no. 1 (2017): 3–12.

47 Participant, Regional Forum, 2017.

48 Interviewee April 28, 2017.

49 Interviewee May 10, 2017.

50 Jennifer A. Kurth, Anne M. Mastergeorge, and Katherine Paschall, “Economic and Demographic Factors 

Impacting Placement of Students with Autism,” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental 

Disabilities 51, no. 1 (2016): 3–12.

51 34 C.F.R. §300 Vol. 81, No. 243 December 19, 2016.

52 Office of Special Education Programs, “Memorandum 95-9” (November 23, 1994).

53 Office of Special Education Programs, “Dear Colleague Letter on Preschool Least Restrictive Environment” 

(February 29, 2012), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2012-1/

dearcolleague022912preschoollre1q2012.doc.

54 U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Policy Statement on 

Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs (Washington, DC: Author, 2015), accessed 

October 25, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/earlylearning/joint-statement-full-text.pdf.

55 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, “Policy Guidance on Free Appropriate Public 

Education (FAPE)” (November 16, 2015), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/

idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-fape-11-17-2015.pdf.

56 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, “Dear Colleague Letter on the Inclusion of Behavioral 

Supports in Individualized Education Programs” (August 1, 2016), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www2.

ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/dcl-on-pbis-in-ieps--08-01-2016.pdf.

57 Office of Special Education Programs, “Updated Dear Colleague Letter on Preschool Least Restrictive 

Environments” (January 9, 2017), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/

memosdcltrs/preschool-lre-dcl-1-10-17.pdf.

54 National Council on Disability
58 Nebraska State Department of Education, Setting Goals . . . Achieving Results. Nebraska IEP Technical 

Assistance Guide (Nebraska State Department of Education, 2014), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.

education.ne.gov/sped/technicalassist/Setting%20Goals%20Achieving%20Results%203-11-14.pdf.

59 Florida Title XLVIII K-20 Education Code Chapter 1003 Exceptional Students Instruction (1003.57), accessed 

October 25, 2017, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_

mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=1003.57&URL=1000-1099/1003/Sections/1003.57.html.

60 Kansas Department of Education, Kansas Special Education Services Process Handbook, Chapter 6, accessed 

October 25, 2017, http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/PH/PH-Ch06.pdf?ver=2014-10-14-115539-767.

61 Pennsylvania Department of Education, Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and Educational Placement for 

Students with Individual Education Programs (PA Department of Education, 2002), accessed October 25, 

2017, http://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/Codes%20and%20Regulations/Basic%20Education%20

Circulars/PA%20Code/Least%20Restrictive%20Environment%20(LRE)%20and%20Educational%20

Placement%20for%20Students%20with%20Individualized%20Education%20Programs%20(IEPs).pdf.

62 Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, “Placement Decisions and the Least Restrictive 

Environment (LRE). Deciding Where Your Student’s IEP Will Be Implemented” (2016), accessed October 25, 

2017, http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/Families/LRE.aspx.

63 Disability Rights New Jersey, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Education, Civil Action No. 07-2978 

(February 19, 2014).

64 New Jersey Administrative Code, 6A:14 Special Education (2016), accessed October 25, 2017, http://www.

nj.gov/education/code/current/title6a/chap14.pdf.

65 Ibid.

66 Office of Special Education Programs, Memorandum 17-01. 2017 Part B State Performance Plan/Annual 

Performance Report (Part B SPP/APR) (December 26, 2016), accessed October 25, 2017, https://osep.

grads360.org/services/PDCService.svc/GetPDCDocumentFile?fileId=24914.

67 Jennifer A. Kurth, Naheed Abdulrahim, Christie Scanlin Dobson, Courtney Wilt, and Elizabeth B. Kozleski, 

“Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environments (LRE),” in Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance 

Report 2016 Indicator Analyses (2016), accessed October 25, 2017, https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/

pdc/documents/12827.

68 Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, “Indicator 6: Preschool LRE,” in Part B State Performance Plan/

Annual Performance Report 2016 Indicator Analyses (2016), accessed October 25, 2017, https://osep.grads360.

org/#communities/pdc/documents/12827.

69 Office of Special Education Programs. 2016. “State Determination Letter Response to New Jersey SPP/APR” 

(2016), accessed October 25, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/2016/nj-aprltr-2016b.

pdf.

70 New Jersey Part B FFY2014 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (2016), accessed October 

25, 2017, https://osep.grads360.org/services/PDCService.svc/GetPDCDocumentFile?fileId=20395.

71 Steve Taylor, “Caught in the Continuum: A Critical Analysis of the Principle of the Least Restrictive 

Environment,” Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 29, no. 4 (2004): 218–230.

72 Ibid., 224.

73 Jonathan Rix, Kieron Sheehy, Felicity Fletcher-Campbell, Martin Crisp, and Amanda Harper, “Moving From a 

Continuum to a Community: Reconceptualizing the Provision of Support,” Review of Educational Research 85, 

no. 3 (2015): 1–34.

74 Janet S. Sauer and Cheryl M. Jorgensen, “Still Caught in the Continuum: A Critical Analysis of Least 

Restrictive Environment and its Effect on Placement of Students with Intellectual Disability,” Inclusion 4 

(2016): 56–74.

75 Interviewee, May 13, 2017.

76 Interviewee, April 19, 2017.

77 Interviewee, April 24, 2017.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 55
78 Diane L. Ryndak, Debbie Taub, Cheryl M. Jorgensen, Jean Gonsier-Gerdin, Katrina Arndt, Janet Sauer, Andrea 

L. Ruppar, Mary E. Morningstar, and Heather Allcock, “Policy and the Impact on Placement, Involvement, and 

Progress in General Education: Critical Issues That Require Rectification,” Research and Practice for Persons 

with Severe Disabilities 39, no. 1 (2014): 65–74.

79 Ibid., 67.

80 Interviewee, April 14, 2017

81 Participant, Regional Forum, 2017

82 Participant, Regional Forum, 2017

83 Participant, Regional Forum, 2017

84 Participant, Regional Forum, 2017

85 Michael F. Giangreco, “One-to-One Paraprofessionals for Students With Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms: Is 

Conventional Wisdom Wrong?” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 48, no. 1 (2010): 1–13.

86 Gazi F. Azad, Jill Locke, Margaret Mary Downey, Ming Xie, and David S. Mandell, “One-to-One Assistant 

Engagement in Autism Support Classrooms,” Teacher Education and Special Education 38 (2015): 337–346.

87 Thomas M. Skrtic, Wayne Sailor, and Kathleen Gee, “Voice, Collaboration, and Inclusion,” Remedial and 

Special Education 17 (1996): 142–157.

88 Alfredo J. Artiles and Elizabeth B. Kozleski, “Inclusive Education’s Promises and Trajectories: Critical Notes 

About Future Research on a Venerable Idea,” Education Policy Analysis Archives 24 (2016): 43.

89 A. Olson, M. M. Leko, and C. A. Roberts, “Providing Students with Severe Disabilities Access to the General 

Education Curriculum,” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 41, no. 3 (2016): 143–157.

90 James McLeskey et al. “What Are Effective Inclusive Schools and Why are They Important?” in Handbook of 

Effective Inclusive Schools, ed. James McLeskey, Nancy L. Waldron, Fred Spooner, and Bob Algozzine (New 

York: Routledge, 2014), 3–16.

91 Ibid., 4.

92 The Swift Center, “Whatever it Takes,” SWIFT Inclusive Academic Instruction film, video, 21:52, 2016, 

accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzVaecgNvlg.

93 Xuan Bui et al., “Inclusive Education Research & Practice,” accessed July 10, 2017, http://www.mcie.org/

usermedia/application/6/inclusion_works_final.pdf; Diane Ryndak, Lewis B. Jackson, and Julia M. White, 

“Involvement and Progress in the General Curriculum for Students with Extensive Support Needs: K-12 

Inclusive Education Research and Implications for the Future,” Inclusion 1 (2013): 28–49; Janet S. Sauer and 

Cheryl M. Jorgenson, “Still Caught in the Continuum: A Critical Analysis of Least Restrictive Environment and 

its Effect on Placement of Students with Intellectual Disability,” Inclusion 4 (2016): 56–74.

94 Thomas Hehir et al., A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education (São Paulo, Brazil: Instituto Alana, 

2016), accessed on June 8, 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312084483_A_Summary_of_the_

Research_Evidence_on_Inclusive_Education.

95 Edwin Helmstetter et al., “Comparison of General and Special Education Classrooms of Students with Severe 

Disabilities,” Education and Training in Mental Retardations and Developmental Disabilities 33 (1988): 216–

227; Pam Hunt et al., “Evaluating the Effects of Placement of Students with Severe Disabilities in General 

Education Versus Special Education Classes,” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps

19, no. 3 (1988): 200–214.

96 Mary D. Fisher and Luanna H. Meyer, “Development and Social Competence after Two Years for Students 

Enrolled in Inclusive and Self-Contained Educational Programs,” Research and Practice for Persons with 

Intellectual Disabilities 27, no. 3 (2002): 165–174.

97 Sue Buckley, Gillian Bird, Ben Sacks, and Tamsin Archer, “A Comparison of Mainstream and Special Education 

for Teenagers with Down Syndrome: Implications for Parents and Teachers,” Down Syndrome Research and 

Practice 9, no. 3 (2006): 54–67; Diane L. Ryndak, Andrea P. Morrison, and Lynne Sommerstein, “Literacy 

Prior to and After Inclusion in General Education Settings,” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe 

Handicaps 24 (1999): 5–22.

56 National Council on Disability
98 Michael Guralnick et al., “Immediate Effects of Mainstream Settings on the Social Interactions and Social 

Integration of Preschool Children,” American Journal on Mental Retardation 100 (1996): 359–377.

99 Dale Fryxell and Craig H. Kennedy, “Placement Along the Continuum of Services and its Impact on 

Students’ Social Relationships,” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 20, no. 

4 (1995): 259–269; Diane L. Ryndak et al., “Long-Term Outcomes of Services for Two Persons with 

Significant Disabilities with Differing Educational Experiences: A Qualitative Consideration of the Impact 

of Educational Experiences,” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 45 (2010): 

323–338.

100 Buckley et al. (2006); Helmstetter et al. (1998); Ryndak et al. (1999).

101 Gail McGregor and R. Timm Vogelsberg, Inclusive Schooling Practices: Pedagogical and Research Foundations: 

A Synthesis of the Literature that Informs Best Practices about Inclusive Schooling (Missoula, MT: University 

of Montana, Rural Institute on Disabilities, 1998), 5–6; Ryndak et al. (2010).

102 Mary Wagner et al., “The Academic Achievement and Functional Performance of Youth with Disabilities,” 

in A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (Menlo Park, CA: SRI 

International, 2006).

103 Christopher Kliewer and Douglas Biklen, “School’s Not Really a Place for Reading: A Research Synthesis of 

the Literate Lives of Students with Severe Disabilities,” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe 

Handicaps 26 (2001): 1–12.

104 Hehir et al. (2016).

105 Nancy Waldron, Cassandra M. Cole, and Massoumeh Majd, The Academic Progress of Students Across 

Inclusive and Traditional Settings: A Two Year Indiana Inclusion Study (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Institute on 

Disability & Community, 2001).

106 Tia M. Hollowood et al., “Use of Instructional Time in Serving Students with and without Disabilities,” 

Exceptional Children 61 (1995): 242–253; Gail McGregor and R. Timm Vogelsberg, Inclusive Schooling 

Practices: Pedagogical and Research Foundations: A Synthesis of the Literature that Informs Best Practices 

about Inclusive Schooling (Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Rural Institute on Disabilities, 1998), 5–6.

107 Hehir et al. (2016).

108 Debbie Staub and Charles A. Peck, “What Are the Outcomes for Nondisabled Students?” Educational 

Leadership 52, no. 4 (1995): 36–40.

109 June E. Downing and Kathryn D. Peckham-Hardin, “Inclusive Education: What Makes it a Good Education for 

Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities?” Research to Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 32, 

no. 1 (2007): 16–30.

110 Helmstetter et al. (1998).

111 Jane H. Soukup, Michael L. Weymeyer, Susan M. Bashinski, and James A. Boyaird, “Classroom Variables and 

Access to the General Curriculum for Students with Disabilities,” Exceptional Children 75 (2007): 101–120.

112 Jennifer A. Kurth, Kiara Born, and Hailey Love, “Ecobehavioral Characteristics of Self-Contained High School 

Classrooms for Students with Severe Cognitive Disability,” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe 

Disabilities 41 (2016): 227–243.

113 John McDonnell, Nadine Thorson, and Camille McQuivey, “Comparison of the Instructional Contexts of 

Students with Severe Disabilities and their Peers in General Education Classes,” Journal of the Association for 

Persons with Severe Handicaps 25 (2000): 54–58.

114 Lori L. Nelson and Mindy Johnson, “The Role of Technology in Implementing Universal Design for Learning,” 

in Handbook of Research-Based Practices for Educating Students with Intellectual Disability, ed. Michael L. 

Wehmeyer and Karrie A. Shogren (New York: Routledge, 2017), 217–234.

115 Robert E. Slavin, “Students Motivating Students to Excel: Cooperative Incentives, Cooperative Tasks, and 

Student Achievement,” The Elementary School Journal 85 (1984): 53–63.

116 Susan R. Copeland and Joanna Cosbey, “Making Progress in the General Curriculum: Rethinking Effective 

Instructional Practices,” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 33–34, no. 4–1 

(2008–2009): 214–227.

The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 57
117 Julie Causton-Theoharis, George Theoharis, Fernanda Orsati, and Meghan Cosier, “Does Self-Contained 

Special Education Deliver on its Promises? A Critical Inquiry into Research and Practice,” Journal of Special 

Education Leadership 24 (2011): 61–77.

118 Tracey E. Hall et al., Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation (National Center on 

Accessing the General Curriculum, 2002), accessing October 25, 2017, www.cast.org/udlcourse/DifferInstruct.

doc.

119 Tracy A. Huebner, “What Research Says About Differentiated Learning,” Education Leadership 67, no. 5 (2010): 

79–81.

120 Traci Baumgartner, Mary Beth Lipowski, and Christy Rush, “Increasing Reading Achievement of Primary 

and Middle School Students Through Differentiated Instruction” (master’s research, available from Education 

Resources Information Center, ERIC No. ED479203, 2003).

121 Fredda Brown, Jackie L. Anderson, and Randall L. DePry, Individual Positive Behavior Support: A StandardsBased Guide to Practices in School and Community-Based Settings (Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 2015); 

Robert Horner, George Sugai, Keith Smolkowski, Anne W. Todd, Jean Nakasato, and Jody Esperanza, “A 

Randomized Control Trial of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support in Elementary Schools,” Journal of Positive 

Behavior Interventions 11 (2009): 113–144.

122 “Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports,” accessed October 25, 2017, www.pbis.org.

123 Trevor Fronius, Hannah Persson, Sarah Guckenburg, Nancy Hurley, and Anthony Petrosin, Restorative Justice 

in US Schools: A Research Review (San Francisco, CA: WestEd, 2016), accessed October 25, 2017, https://jprc.

wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RJ_Literature-Review_20160217.pdf.

124 Eric W. Carter, Lisa S. Cushing, Nitasha M. Clark, and Craig H. Kennedy, “Effects of Peer Support 

Interventions on Students’ Access to the General Curriculum and Social Interactions,” Research and Practice 

for Persons with Severe Disabilities 30 (2005): 15–25.

125 John McDonnell, Connie Mathot-Buckner, Nadine Thorson, and Susan Fister, “Supporting the Inclusion of 

Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities in Junior High School General Education Classes: The Effects 

of Classwide Peer Tutoring, Multi-Element Curriculum and Accommodations,” Education and Treatment of 

Children 24 (2001): 141–160.

126 Kristen L. McMaster, Douglas Fuchs, and Lynn S. Fuchs, “Promises and Limitations of Peer-Assisted Learning 

Strategies in Reading,” Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5 (2007): 97–112.

127 Terese C. Aceves and Michael J. Orosco, “Culturally Responsive Teaching,” Document No. IC-2 (2014), 

accessed October 25, 2017, http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/.

128 Karrie A. Shogren, Michael L. Wehmeyer, Kathleen L. Lane, and Carol Quirk, “Multitiered Systems of 

Supports,” in Handbook of Research-Based Practices for Educating Students with Intellectual Disability, ed. 

Michael L. Wehmeyer and Karri A. Shogren (New York: Routledge, 2017), 185–198.

129 Kent McIntosh and Steve Goodman, Integrated Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Blending RTI and PBIS

(New York: Guilford Press, 2016).

58 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004