In my view, it is clear that the parents' decision to include their son in mainstream high school classes was a wise one. Even with their reservations, it appears that educational professionals agreed with this view.

The disagreements are evidently mainly the result of philosophical differences, with educators being reserved about inclusion while parents were clearly overwhelmingly positive. I think greater alignment could have been achieved from the beginning if the parents' views were seen in a more positive light. In other words, if the parents' knowledge of their son and his situation were acknowledged as having significant validity, I think the educators would have experienced less conflict with them. There appears to be a sense of general distrust of the parents' opinion as subjective regarding their son. The parents, in turn, appear to be somewhat dismissive of the educators' reservations. I think there could have been a greater alignment between the teachers and parents if communication acknowledged the differences in reservation levels among the educators and parents. Educators could have, for example, provided parents with clear reasons for their reservations, especially in terms of experiences with other, similar situations. Parents, in turn, could have provided clear reasons for their overwhelmingly positive attitude. As McKee (2011) mentions, better and more open communication would have created better relations among the parties involved.

If he matter were to be referred to the court rooms, I believe the court would have ruled in favor of maintaining mainstream education for the young man. This decision would be based upon the legislation and LRE statement mentioned above. Since the student caused no disruptions in class and since all parties involved acknowledged the benefits he derived from being included, the decision would necessarily be to maintain his inclusion. Furthermore, the fact that medication resolved he boy's arousal problem further demonstrates the parents' in-depth knowledge of their son's condition, which would further move such decisions in their favor. In terms of the requirement...

Greer v. Rome City School (1991), for example, involved a parent arguing for inclusion (Blankenship, Boon, and Fore, 2007, p. 6). The Court found in favor of the parent, citing that the school had not provided reasonable supplementary aids and services to facilitate the inclusion.
In a case like the one studied by McKee, the parents' knowledge of their son and his needs is clearly demonstrated by the medication/behavior incident, which could create a platform for finding in their favor regarding extra-curricular training as well.

In the case of Beth V. v. Van Clay (2002), on the other hand, the 7th Circuit Court ruled against inclusion for students who showed a lack of educational progress and a lack of socialization in the general education environment.

For McKee's case study, both educators and parents agreed on the benefits he student derived from inclusion in terms of both socialization and educational progress, especially after the resolution of he arousal problem. Based on this, it is also likely that the court would rule in favor of the parents regarding their son's need for extra-curricular skills training.

Cases like the one discussed by McKee provides evidence in favor of including even students with severe disabilities in the mainstream classroom.