out disrupting education to himself or others, integration is inappropriate. Appropriateness is usually determined by a process of trial and error.
While mainstreaming is preferred, it is not guaranteed and is improper in some circumstances. For example, one court found a child with autism was appropriately segregated from a mainstream classroom because the student was dis- ruptive and lacked academic progress in a mixed environ- ment. Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 118 F.3d 996, 1012 (4th Cir. 1997). In comparison, an- other court held complete removal of the child to a special school was appropriate. Alex G. v. Board of Trustees of Davis Joint Unified School District, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1127 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
WHICH STUDENTS WITH AUTISM QUALIFY FOR IDEA PROTECTION? A child diagnosed with autism is protected by IDEA only if the symptoms impair the child’s educational performance to below satisfactory level. Despite medical diagnosis, cer- tain students with autism may not fall within the protec- tions of IDEA if the disability does not negatively affect education and the child receives a FAPE without special education and related services.
For example, Congress states that a child with autism is not protected if the primary reason for adverse effect on edu- cational performance is emotional disturbance rather than neurological dysfunction. This policy marries the spectrum of the disability’s symptoms and the purpose behind Con- gress enacting IDEA to equalize education for those stu- dents disadvantaged by disability.
Nevertheless, a student with autism can achieve academic success independently, despite the fact that the child will still qualify for special education and related services if the dis- order impairs other areas closely associated with education.
To illustrate, a child with Asperger’s (a type of mild, highly functional autism marked by concrete, literal think- ing and eccentricities) who excels academically and exhibits excellent behavior is entitled to special education services under IDEA if the child has other unhealthy behaviors and social problems.
However, while the court explicitly considers adverse ef- fects upon “non-academic areas,” speech problems alone
32 FALL 2011
do not qualify a student with autism who is academically succeeding to receive protection under the act.
IDEA BENEFITS STUDENTS ON AND OFF THE REPORT CARD Courts have found that the policy of integration benefits students with and without autism. In L.B. v. Nebo School District, the district moved to transfer a highly functional student with autism to a special education preschool, de- spite the child’s success in the regular classroom with the use of an aide and intensive behavioral program. 379 F.3d 966, 978 (10th Cir. 2004).
Instead, the court found several greater reasons for keeping the plaintiff in the public school and utilizing specialized instruction. First, the child was the most academically ad- vanced in her mainstream classroom, and the students in the segregated environment functioned at a considerably lower level that would have in turn impeded the plaintiff ’s academic benefit.
Second, the integrated classroom had improved the stu- dent’s social skills and was conducive to improving her behavioral and relational needs. Third, the plaintiff ’s be- havioral problems were not disruptive in the regular class- room. Ultimately, the court held removal of the plaintiff from the mainstream classroom a violation of IDEA.
IDEA’s emphasis on integration is policy that will benefit the cohesion of students with autism and society. With slow sub- mersion into varied sensory experiences and social interac- tions, students with autism become acclimated to the daily struggles they will encounter beyond the school-yard gate.
As the student with autism benefits, so do the other stu- dents in the mainstream classroom. The modern education of students includes lessons of acceptance and understand- ing, as a diversity of ideas and differences develop our na- tion’s students to enter a global society.
Julie R. Woods earned her J.D. from University of Notre Dame Law School in 2010 after attaining two bachelor’s degrees at University of Southern California. She may be reached at
julierwoods@yahoo.com.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68