The Disability Integration Presumption: Thirty Years Later

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences University of Pennsylvania Law Review Pub Date : 2006-04-01 DOI:10.2307/40041286
R. Colker
{"title":"The Disability Integration Presumption: Thirty Years Later","authors":"R. Colker","doi":"10.2307/40041286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The fiftieth anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision has spurred a lively debate about the merits of \"integration.\" This article brings that debate to a new context - the integration presumption under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (\"IDEA\"). The IDEA has contained an \"integration presumption\" for more than thirty years under which school districts should presumptively educate disabled children with children who are not disabled in a fully inclusive educational environment. This article traces the history of this presumption and argues that it was borrowed from the racial civil rights movement without any empirical justification. In addition, the article demonstrates that Congress created this presumption to mandate the closing of inhumane, disability-only educational institutions but not to require fully inclusive education for all children with disabilities. This article examines the available empirical data and concludes that such evidence cannot justify a presumption for a fully inclusive educational environment for children with mental retardation, emotional or mental health impairments, or learning disabilities. While this article recognizes that structural remedies, such as an integration presumption, can play an important role in achieving substantive equality, such remedies also need periodic re-examination. Modification of the integration presumption can help it better serve the substantive goal of according an adequate and appropriate education to the full range of children who have disabilities while still protecting disabled children from inhumane, disability-only educational warehouses.","PeriodicalId":48012,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","volume":"154 1","pages":"789"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40041286","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041286","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

The fiftieth anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision has spurred a lively debate about the merits of "integration." This article brings that debate to a new context - the integration presumption under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). The IDEA has contained an "integration presumption" for more than thirty years under which school districts should presumptively educate disabled children with children who are not disabled in a fully inclusive educational environment. This article traces the history of this presumption and argues that it was borrowed from the racial civil rights movement without any empirical justification. In addition, the article demonstrates that Congress created this presumption to mandate the closing of inhumane, disability-only educational institutions but not to require fully inclusive education for all children with disabilities. This article examines the available empirical data and concludes that such evidence cannot justify a presumption for a fully inclusive educational environment for children with mental retardation, emotional or mental health impairments, or learning disabilities. While this article recognizes that structural remedies, such as an integration presumption, can play an important role in achieving substantive equality, such remedies also need periodic re-examination. Modification of the integration presumption can help it better serve the substantive goal of according an adequate and appropriate education to the full range of children who have disabilities while still protecting disabled children from inhumane, disability-only educational warehouses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残疾融合推定:三十年后
布朗诉教育委员会案判决50周年之际,引发了一场关于“融合”优点的激烈辩论。本文将这一争论带入了一个新的背景——《残疾人教育法》(IDEA)下的融合推定。30多年来,该理念包含了一项“融合推定”,根据该推定,学区应该假定残疾儿童与非残疾儿童一起在完全包容的教育环境中接受教育。本文追溯了这一假设的历史,并认为它是从种族民权运动中借来的,没有任何实证依据。此外,这篇文章表明,国会创造了这一假设,以强制关闭不人道的、仅限残疾人的教育机构,而不是要求对所有残疾儿童进行完全包容的教育。本文审查了现有的经验数据,并得出结论,这些证据不能证明为智力迟钝、情感或精神健康障碍或学习障碍儿童提供完全包容的教育环境的假设是合理的。虽然本条承认结构性补救措施,如一体化推定,可在实现实质性平等方面发挥重要作用,但此类补救措施也需要定期重新审查。对融合推定的修改可以帮助它更好地服务于向所有残疾儿童提供充分和适当的教育的实质性目标,同时仍然保护残疾儿童免受不人道的、只针对残疾的教育仓库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Ultrastructural and Molecular Development of the Myotendinous Junction Triggered by Stretching Prior to Resistance Exercise. The Specification Power Cross-national analysis about the difference of histopathological management in Tis and T1 colorectal cancer between Japan and Korea. Law, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality Data-Driven Originalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1