Least Restrictive Environment, Inclusion and Mainstreaming

Definition of Inclusion "All individuals can participate in physical activities that enable them to be motorically, cognitively, and affectively successful within a community that embraces diversity"

Inclusion is a philosophy that states all individuals, regardless of ability, should participate within the same environment with necessary support and individualized attention. Inclusion is more than simply placing individuals together, its a belief that all individuals belong and are valued (Kasser & Lytle, 2005). Inclusion in schools and Adapted Physical Education There is a need for proper planning, preparation and support Teachers need provide an appropriate education for everyone at varying levels How to include children with Disabilities into the class The Lieberman and Houston-Wilson (2002) model demonstrates options that allow students to move from a totally inclusive environment to a segregated environment for including students with disabilities. This gives teachers options to have their students move from one environment to another based on their unique needs. The Lieberman and Houston-Wilson Model of Continuum of Supports and Placements: Inclusion Options o Full inclusion with no adaptations or support o Full inclusion with curriculum adaptations o Full inclusion with trained peer tutors o Full inclusion with teacher assistants o Full inclusion with interpreter Part-time Segregated Placement Options o Split placement without support o Split placement with support Community-Based Options o Part-time (community and school based activities) o Full-time Full-time Segregated Placement Options within a regular school district o Small group o One-to-one Segregated Placement Options o Day school for specific disabilities o Residential school for specific disabilities o Home schooling

Hospital setting

What is Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)? IDEA defines Least Restrictive Environment as "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (Sec. 612 (a)[5]). Every student with a disability should be given the opportunity to start out in a general education classroom and if that environment does not allow for success and a more restrictive environment is deemed appropriate, then that facilitators and educators must give good reason as to why the LRE is not working and it should be a main topic of discussion in the IEP meeting (Block, 1999). LRE supports the students right to be in the general education classroom unless assessment data indicate that prescribed goals cannot be met in that setting, with support services. In regards to physical education a student might be assigned to in either one of these instructional setting from least restrictive to most restrictive environment. 1. General physical education with no support services 2. General physical education with support services 3. Specifically designed integrated physical education (e.g., a buddy for every student with disability; a community recreation setting to learn transition skills) 4. A resource room, separate setting, or one to one tutoring LRE Human Supports include: (Sherrill 2004) Consultants (adapted physical educators) Adult aids (paraprofessionals, paraeducators) Peer and cross age tutors, peer helpers, coaches Recreators associated with disability and sport Special educators, orientation Mobility specialist Others In order to include learners with disabilities in the general physical education setting, a great deal of care must be taken to create an environment in which they will: Complete annual goals and objectives in Physical Education on the learners' IEP Experience success Be an active, rather than a passive, participant in the general physical education program Auxter, Pyfer, and Huettig (2005) have identified the following 9 variables which must be considered when designing instruction in physical education in the least restrictive environment. Accessibility Curriculum Program Participation Support Personnel

Teaching Style Management of Behavior Grading Assessment Equipment

Accessibility Facilities vary from district to district. Some schools have a gym plus outdoor areas, and some only have one small gym. Evaluating the facility for the appropriateness for all learners is vital. A result of the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, all new facilities much be built to ensure access for all individuals with disabilities. Curriculum The most inclusive curriculum for most learners is based upon the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) National Standards for Physical Education. The most restrictive, but perhaps most appropriate, curriculum for some learners is a specially designed Adapted Physical Education curriculum. Program Participation The most inclusive environment for most learners will be full, independent participation in general physical education. The most restrictive environment for most learners is Adapted Physical Education in a home, institution or hospital. Program participation variables include participation in appropriate units or appropriate parts of the general physical education lesson. Support Personnel The most inclusive environment for most learners is one in which no support personnel are necessary and the learner is able to accomplish IEP goals and objectives when taught by the general physical educator at the same time other learners of the same age are receiving instruction. After all, the presence of an adult [or even a peer] designated to help is very separating. The most restrictive learning environment, but perhaps necessary, is one in which the student receives direct instruction, full-time, from the Adapted Physical Education teacher. Teaching Style The teaching style that works best for learners with disabilities is dependent upon the unique needs of the learner. For example, a command style may be very helpful for a learner with an emotional disturbance who requires a great deal of structure. On the other hand, a learner with a behavior disorder who struggles with specific rules may be more successful with a teacher using individually designed programs or guided discovery. Management of Behavior The least restrictive environment is one in which the student can function successfully with the same behavior expectations as his/her peers. An individually designed behavior management plan (BMP) may be necessary; while more restrictive, it may be a precursor to successful participation in the general physical education program. Grading The most inclusive situation is one in which the student is graded according to the criteria used for other students and receives the same report cards. It may be more restrictive, but necessary, to modify grading or the type of report cards for students with disabilities.

Assessment A comprehensive assessment is perhaps the most critical piece in decisions regarding least restrictive environment. A student can not and should not be placed into any learning environment without a comprehensive adapted physical education assessment. The legislation mandates that learners with disabilities be included, whenever possible, in statemandated assessments. Equipment The most inclusive environment is one in which the learner can participate using the same equipment other learners are using. It may be more restrictive if the student requires specialized equipment that separates the student from others.

What is the difference between inclusion and LRE? The difference between inclusion and LRE is that inclusion is a philosophy that promotes school options, while LRE is the most appropriate setting for a child with disabilities to be education in (Davis & Davis, 1994). Table 1. A Comparison of Inclusion and the Least Restrictive Environment Inclusion No LRE Yes

Mandated by Law Reflects educational school Yes No reform Concerned with placement No Yes options along a continuum Concerned with appropriate Yes Yes education for all children Must be included on No Yes students IEP Has procedural guidelines No Yes from implementation Uses support services onYes Yes site Table taken from Davis and Davis (1994).

Mainstreaming Definition Mainstreaming is the process of placing individuals with disabilities into the general education or community environment. The term is now not recommended because of its association with the perceived dumping of students into general educational classes without the support they need (Kasser & Lytle, 2004). Mainstreaming and Inclusion The two terms are related, but are quite different. In mainstreaming, as in partial inclusion, an individual with a disabilitys home classroom is a special education classroom. However, students who are mainstreamed will spend most of their day learning side by side with their

general educated peers. In mainstreaming the students are usually expected to keep up with the rest of their peers without significant supplementary aids and support services. This supports and values having individuals with disabilities interact with student without any disabilities

References Auxter, D., Pyfer, J. & Huettig, C. (2005). Principles and methods of adapted physical education and recreation. (10th ed.), McGraw Hill: New York. Davis, R. & Davis, T. (1994). Inclusion and least restrictive environments. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 5 (5), 1, 4-5. Kasser, S.L., & Lytle, R.K. (2005). Inclusive physical activity: A liftetime of opportunities. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, U.S.C., Title 20 , 1400 et seq. Least restrictive environment retrieved on 04/18/2007 from www.Irecoalition.org; and www.Ericdigest.org. Lieberman, L.J., & Houston-Wilson, C. (2002). Strategies for INCLUSION: A handbook for physical educators. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sherrill, C (2004). Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport: Crossdisciplinary and lifespan. (6th ed). New York: McGraw Hill Background The limitations of reliable and accessible UK national and local quantitative data on the prevalence of childhood disability and the characteristics and circumstances of disabled children and their households have been recognized for some time. This paper reports the findings from a study that scoped and quality-assessed existing quantitative UK national and regional data sets on disabled children and their families. Methods A comprehensive search of relevant data sources with information on disabled children was undertaken. Data sources were evaluated with reference to: disability definitions and questions; potential to generate nationally representative prevalence estimates of disabled children; study design; population coverage; sampling issues; social and demographic data; appropriateness for identifying childhood as opposed to adult disability. Results Thirty-seven data sources with information on childhood disability were identified, of which 30 met the inclusion criteria: nine cross-sectional surveys, nine longitudinal and panel studies, seven administrative data sets, four specific condition databases and one was another type. Definitions and questions varied across data sources. Long-standing illness and limiting long-standing illness were the most consistently used definitions. Repeated cross-sectional surveys were found to be most appropriate for estimating overall prevalence but, with the exception of the Population Census, sample sizes were too small to study prevalence and characteristics by some population sub-groups such, including age by year, minority ethnic status and socio-economic position. Few data sources included questions appropriate for identifying childhood as opposed to adult disability or collected information from disabled children themselves. Conclusions Our findings summarize the currently available quantitative data sources on childhood disability and highlight the limitations. We make recommendations for the future development of more robust childhood disability data and issues requiring further research. To assist policy makers and service providers to make use of current data sources we have produced a brief online guide based on our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate the prevalence of children who are in need of special support in the total population of children attending preschools (CA 16) in two Swedish counties, and the functional problems exhibited by the children in relation to demographical and environmental factors in the preschool context. Method: Survey distributed to (N = 1138) preschools in two Swedish counties. Results: The majority of children perceived by preschool teachers and in need of special support were undiagnosed children with functional difficulties related to speech, language and interaction with peers. Conclusion: Undiagnosed and diagnosed children share the same type of difficulties. Thus, in estimating the prevalence of children in need of special support in a preschool context, traditional disability categories capture only a small proportion of the children experiencing difficulties. Therefore, a functional approach in studies of children in need of special support is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Paediatrica is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Aim: To investigate the prevalence of children who are in need of special support in the total population of children attending preschools (CA 16) in two Swedish counties, and the functional problems exhibited by the children in relation to demographical and environmental factors in the preschool context. Method: Survey distributed to (N = 1138) preschools in two Swedish counties. Results: The majority of children perceived by preschool teachers and in need of special support were undiagnosed children with functional difficulties related to speech, language and interaction with peers. Conclusion: Undiagnosed and diagnosed children share the same type of difficulties. Thus, in estimating the prevalence of children in need of special support in a preschool context, traditional disability categories capture only a small proportion of the children experiencing difficulties. Therefore, a functional approach in studies of children in need of special support is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Paediatrica is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations:
1

School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, Mlardalen University, Vsters, Sweden. 2 Department of Behavioral, Social and Legal Sciences,rebro University, rebro, Sweden. 3 Research Program CHILD, Jnkping University, Jnkping, Sweden. 4 School of Health Science, Jnkping University, Jnkping, Sweden.