Research is increasingly demonstrating that well - implemented inclusive education benefits both disabled and
nondisabled students.
This principle is based on the idea that classrooms that include both disabled and
nondisabled students provide a more appropriate and beneficial environment for the disabled student, who has greater opportunity to associate with nondisabled peers, and
nondisabled students learn that those with disabilities are no less worthy as individuals.
The nondisabled students who remain in D.C. public schools lack the same mechanism for exiting failing schools.
Moreover, the existing research, given the limitations outlined above, hardly establishes that many
nondisabled students would not benefit from having extra time.
The effect was to give a randomly selected group of
nondisabled students extra time, about the equivalent of time and a half.
Yet the panel majority concluded, «This finding is consistent with the argument that students with disabilities need more time to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and abilities than
the nondisabled students, and suggests that the scores of these students taken under the condition of extended time are more representative of their true performance than are the scores they would obtain from a standard administration.»
The panel's majority interpreted this research as showing that disabled students benefit more from taking the SAT with extended time than
nondisabled students do.
Accommodations like extended time, they believe, are necessary to equalize the testing experience for disabled and
nondisabled students and thus make the scores of disabled students more valid.
If learning test - taking skills enhances the performance of
nondisabled students on tests, then learning test - taking skills improves the life prospects of students with disabilities, too.
Indeed, Robert Brennan of the University of Iowa (who directs the Iowa testing programs), the psychometrician who said «no» and voted with the minority, wrote, «Crucial evidence from prediction studies does not support a conclusion that scores on College Board standardized tests administered with extended time to disabled students are comparable to scores on the same tests administered to
nondisabled students without extended time.»
The use of gain scores also minimizes the incentives for classifying
a nondisabled student as disabled, since such scores measure individual progress instead of lowering the achievement bar.
On average, the direct costs of providing the services required by the IDEA — which do not include the exorbitant transaction costs — is twice that for educating the average
nondisabled student.
Youth enrolled in special education also experience higher rates of suspension: in 2011, students with disabilities were suspended at twice the rate of
nondisabled students.
Inclusion contemplates the placement of students with disabilities in the regular classroom with
nondisabled students as a right and implies that the right is an absolute.
The latest government figures show that the dropout rate for students with disabilities is twice that for
nondisabled students.
auditing or participating (with
nondisabled students) in courses for which the student does not receive regular academic credit,
Report academic performance of students with disabilities with the same regularity as is done for
nondisabled students.
Four decades later, most students with disabilities are educated alongside
nondisabled students in regular classrooms.
In curriculum overlapping, special needs students work with
nondisabled students, but the special needs students have different learning outcomes drawn from separate curricular areas, such as learning basic social and communication skills.
The gap widened slightly for reading between disabled and
nondisabled students.
Not exact matches
But it's challenging for many
students with disabilities and their families to locate real jobs where the youths can work alongside
nondisabled workers and earn competitive wages.
Students with disabilities now have the right to be educated in public schools with their
nondisabled peers and to be prepared for a positive and productive life after school.
The current system of procedural accountability within special education law is a logical response to the problems that led Congress in 1975 to enact the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA): the total exclusion of some
students with disabilities, the inadequate education of others, and the segregation of those in school from their
nondisabled peers.
«The elimination of state requirements specific to class size will best ensure that each
student with disabilities is placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE), as directed by his or her Individualized Education Program (IEP), and has access to the broad array of coursework available to his or her
nondisabled peers, particularly in the middle grades and high school.»
an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the
student will not participate with
nondisabled children in the regular education environment;
This model excluded some
students from the general education curriculum, standard modes of instruction, and social interaction with
nondisabled peers for some or all of each day.
«Today, we want to assure that these
students have no less than the same equal shot at the American dream as their
nondisabled peers.»
Common Core documents and state officials say schools and districts should provide accommodations to
students with disabilities to reach the same high standards to which their
nondisabled classmates are held.
In the multi-level curriculum approach,
students with disabilities participate in shared activities with
nondisabled peers and have individualized learning outcomes that are within the same curricular area.
Elementary Learning Center (ELC) serves
students through a continuum of services in self - contained classes with opportunities to be included with
nondisabled peers in the general education environment.