Search

There is wide variability in settings where students with intellectual disability are taught and a dearth of research related to district special education administrators, their roles and responsibilities, and their perceptions of barriers to and policies and practices that promote access to general education environments for these students. This study was designed to collect information to identify trends related to differences between districts that included no students with intellectual disabilities and those that were more inclusive. Data were collected via an online survey. We conducted descriptive analyses to identify trends among the districts and chi-square analyses to compare two types of districts. We found that there is very little diversity among administrators, who were primarily White women. We found that less inclusive districts spent more time engaged in due process and litigation activities than inclusive districts, and administrators identified external factors as barriers to more inclusive practice. We discuss administrator responsibilities in the context of student outcomes in the state and implications for policy implementation.

Despite the overwhelming body of research suggesting that students with intellectual disability benefit from access to general education placements, students with intellectual disability continue to be educated primarily in segregated settings. Furthermore, the percentage of students with intellectual disability included in general education classrooms varies greatly among and within states across the United States. In an effort to explore such variability in New York State, we examined trends in general education placement rates of students with intellectual disability across districts and possible predictors of placement in regular classes. Results suggest that although descriptive patterns of placement exist, a more definitive explanation of variability requires a deeper analysis of policy and procedure at the district level.

In 2001, a group of student activists at Syracuse University started an organization called the Beyond Compliance Coordinating Committee (BCCC). The BCCC activists used disability studies theory to engage the campus in conversations about disability and inform significant change in the way Syracuse administration think about disability. This paper explores what makes Syracuse unique and what happened between 2001 and the present day. It concludes with recommendations for disability services providers on how they can use the experience at Syracuse to inform their thinking about campus culture and services.