Sociocultural concepts and applications

Socio-Cultural Aspects of LRE and IDEA for Deaf Students

In the successive decades since the original passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the subsequent Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), much conversation and controversy has surrounded the socio-cultural aspects of both programs in terms of the effect that the introduction of physically and/or perceptually challenged students can fairly and effectively be introduced into the mainstream learning environment. Prominent among these controversies and debates is the assertion that the LRE does more socio-cultural damage than good to the deaf community because it separates the deaf individuals from each other through language. In this paper, literature that maintains this claim will be presented in an effort to understand the situation in terms of both an historical and socio-cultural framework.

Historical Framework of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

The LRE, or at least the spirit of it, has been in existence in the United States from the nation's very foundation. When the founders of the country proclaimed equal rights for all, this was meant to ensure that people of different backgrounds are all given the same opportunity to advance and reach their full potential, which in time came to encompass individuals of varying degrees of physical and perceptual ability (Palley, 2006). Admittedly, at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution, those who were deaf, for example, were in most cases kept away from schools in favor of students who had the best chances for utilizing an education for enrichment, especially because of the expense of schooling and the selectivity of the early American educational system. In addition to the economic and practical facets which made the schooling of the deaf in a conventional school unrealistic, the socio-cultural nature of the learning process itself made the accommodation of special needs all but impossible. Eventually, those with a charitable nature began to establish special schools for the deaf and the blind which gave those individuals the chance to be part of the educational process like never before (Where Special Needs Truly Can be Met, 2003). During these early days of what would eventually come to be known as "special education," it was possible for special needs students to receive the individualized teaching that they required because of the small size of the classes themselves and the low cost of the educational process. As time moved forward, however, special education class sizes increased, and along with them, the complexity and expense of educating special needs students. Another factor which served as a catalyst for the change to the traditional special education class structure in schools was the movement to attempt to reduce the stigma associated with disabilities by integrating special needs students into classes with the main school populations (Osborne, et al., 1994). This initiative raised several key questions, such as the question of whether or not a student who may require specialized instruction will be able to gain the benefits of an education in an instructional setting that is clearly geared to students that may have a mental and/or physical advantage to those who are physically and/or mentally impaired.

The desire to include special needs students in the mainstream of the educational system for the sake of building self-esteem and reducing stigmatization eventually led to the creation of legislation which mandated this action. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) asserted that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Specifically, IDEA mandates that:

to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities including children in public and private institutions or other care facilities are educated with children who are not disabled... Or removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (Osborne, et al. 1994).

A literal interpretation of IDEA leaves wide gaps on both sides of the LRE debate. First, there are the vague words such as "appropriate" and "satisfactorily" which makes the determination of the correct LRE open to a great deal of interpretation by school officials, and even in situations when IDEA is required by law, most educational institutions, both public and private, fail to practice IDEA as needed (Worth, 1999). Even in those cases when IDEA is put into practice, once again, the non-specific nature of many of the versions of IDEA that are in use today do little to either integrate those who are able to function in a mainstream educational environment into that environment or prevent those who are capable from being unfairly removed from the traditional classroom setting if the student is perceived to have a disability that precludes inclusion in a class with traditional students. In the worst cases, it is alleged that IDEA is used as an excuse to separate students based upon economic factors rather than physical or mental abilities. Because of the rights-based nature of the American legal system, individual court cases disputing the legality or propriety of IDEA have resulted in the piecemeal disruption of IDEA in those instances when courts ruled one way or another that IDEA was incorrectly interpreted by either a public or private learning institution and as a result, the rights of a student or students were infringed upon (Palley, 2006). Many of the elements that lead to a successful-or unsuccessful-IDEA implementation depend upon isolated circumstances.

During the decades that IDEA and LRE have been in effect, there have been several landmark legal cases that have charted the course that IDEA and LRE would take in the subsequent years:

EARLY COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LRE MANDATE

Initially, there were court rulings that held a position on both sides of the LRE controversy, ranging from state courts to the Supreme Court as follows (Palley, 2006):

HENDRICK HUDSON SCHOOL DISTRICT V. ROWLEY- In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case that special education programs must be provided in LRE in order to be effective; this went against the conventional wisdom that held that LRE was secondary to the provision of an education that is appropriate based on disabilities. This court decision also seems to go against the spirit of IDEA.

ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES CENTER V. MALLORY- This 1984 lower court ruling went against the Supreme Court's 1982 decision, stating that LRE could be waived in the interest of appropriate educational levels, resulting in a court case that was better aligned with the intentions of IDEA.

In general, prior to1989, the majority of court rulings on LRE dictated that mainstreaming was not mandatory for all disabled students, but could be used if it was appropriate for the student, taking away the tendency to make broad statements about what is best for "all students."

RECENT COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LRE MANDATE

There have been an increased number of LRE court decisions in the last decade or so; although some of these cases have resulted in student placement in restrictive environments, the groundwork has been laid for LRE placements in the future, setting the stage for students with severe disabilities to be placed in the general student population. Specifically, IDEA has been adversely affected by some more recent cases:

BARNETT V. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD- This case determined in 1991 that the school that a hearing impaired student was receiving an appropriate education in the conventional school environment, and that the school district did not need to make special accommodations for special needs students due to limited resources available for such a change.

DANIEL V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION- Issued in 1999 by the Fifth Circuit Court, this case has been used by many as the benchmark for the LRE issue. In short, the court held that a separate class was needed for students who had been classified as mentally retarded because of the fact that these students had been placed in conventional classes, and in the end result, the students did not gain the education they needed, and the teachers of the classes were diverted from the other students on a constant basis in order to meet the needs of the special students, which put the majority of the students in the class at a distinct disadvantage.

Perhaps the most accurate statement regarding LRE court cases and the controversy surrounding same is that the educational community is divided on the issue, as are many parents and students because of their individual situations and emotions. From one viewpoint, it seems obvious that students with special needs should be placed in classrooms that accommodate those needs and should be taught in a way that allows them to gain the same benefits of an education that all other students receive in the conventional classroom setting. Education is a fundamental element of the development of solid citizens and productive members of society, and as such, should be a top priority of a civilized population. Conversely, in the interest of developing social skills and self-esteem, there are those who hold steadfast that special needs students should be put into LRE so that they can learn to assimilate with the majority of society, thereby honing social and esteem skills that will serve them well in the world outside of the classroom, regardless of the impact that receiving an education that is not geared toward their needs will cause to occur.

Looking beyond the educational, social, and esteem needs of students, the practical considerations of LRE have given substance to the argument for LRE. Given the tight monetary budgets that many school districts are faced with to provide the bare essentials of conventional education, the provision of special education services is virtually impossible. Citing previous court rulings, the school districts often claim budget shortfalls as a selling point for the implementation of LRE.

Socio-cultural Framework of LRE

Looking beyond the legal and practical ramifications of LRE, consideration must be given to the socio-cultural implications of LRE within the American educational system. In its most basic sense, socio-cultural theory holds that human beings learn through a cognitive and interpretive process, which uses the senses, primarily sight and hearing, in order to gain and retain knowledge (Houng, 2005). Based on this, the integration of students in an interactive learning environment makes it possible for practical knowledge, cultural norms, and social skills to be learned, which will benefit the student in real-world work and interpersonal settings. If socio-cultural theory is correct, the conventional learning methods that are utilized in the modern classroom are geared toward those who have the ability to use their senses to interpret, process and retain information and skills-hence, education in its most basic form. This being the case, it becomes apparent that should someone have an impaired sense-be it sight, hearing, comprehension- that individual would be at a distinct disadvantage in a classroom that geared the curriculum toward those who had complete abilities to see, hear, and process information that was delivered to them. With this in mind, a discussion of the possibility that in the specific case of the deaf community, the LRE on socio-cultural aspect does more damage than good to these individuals because it separates the deaf individuals from each other through language is appropriate and will now be presented within the historical and socio-cultural framework presented thus far.

Are Deaf Students Suffering in Silence?

To fully comprehend the gravity of the situation when the deaf are not properly educated and assimilated, consider this real life scenario:

Jose Flores has been in jail in Passaic County, New Jersey, since June 1992 awaiting trial on charges-kidnapping, burglary and sexual assault. The 29-year-old Flores, profoundly deaf, has not received a speedy trial because he cannot read, write or use sign language. Raised in a remote rural area of Puerto Rico, Flores had neither access to appropriate education nor a deaf community, both of which are needed to foster language in deaf children. People such as Flores, deprived of language until after puberty, are like feral children; they have a very difficult time acquiring language as adults. Because Flores cannot communicate, his lawyer claims that he cannot aid in his own defense and therefore cannot stand trial. Experts who evaluated Flores say that he cannot understand concepts like "guilty," "innocent;" "trial" and "jury." Nevertheless, the prosecutor insists that he be tried.

Throughout America at this very moment there may be hundreds of people, most of whom are poor minorities. languishing in jails and mental hospitals, their rights to justice-- including a speedy trial and" due process -- ignored. These people have two things in common: They are deaf and they cannot sign or speak" (Davis, 1993).

The brief passage presented here speaks volumes about the unfortunate position that deaf students are placed in because of LRE; essentially, because of the fact that the deaf student is placed in the mainstream classroom setting, there are disadvantages that the deaf student is faced with. For those like Jose Flores, it may be too late; for others, there are points to discuss that can make a difference.

To begin, one wonders why deaf students would be placed in LRE in the first place. While this answer may vary by school or school district, overall, this is done to a large extent because of the intention by school administrators to introduce the deaf student into the general classroom population in an effort to give these students the communication and interactive skills that will be needed in society, the workplace, and the home. There is one major flaw with this initiative, however- all good intentions aside, without giving deaf students the specialized and individualized education that their needs dictate, the least restrictive environment is cruelly and tragically transformed into the most restrictive environment. Without the learning of essential skills, conduct and cultural norms, the deaf student can be turned into a confused, dysfunctional member of society, and end up on the wrong end of the criminal justice system, and/or institutionalized as they were so frequently in the past when special needs were not so fully understood. Perhaps the most ironic part of this dilemma is that the special needs of deaf students are fully understood today, but misguided good intentions have placed special needs on the wayside in favor of liberal programs of self-esteem, which are heavy on intentions and objectives, but light on results and progress.

Aside from being alienated from the majority of the population, through LRE, deaf students can ultimately become detached from each other, leading to yet another loss of identity and the understanding that there are others in the world that are like them, which could provide some solace and a sense of belonging to a select community. The way that this detachment and alienation unfolds is as follows: deaf students, being given no special designation as being i9n need of education and interaction within their abilities to understand and process information, are placed in the "rank and file" of the student population. In this setting, the deaf student usually stands alone and confused, unable to communicate adequately or understand anything that is happening around them. Also within this mainstream population, one will likely find any number of other deaf students, separated from those who are like them, likewise receiving an ineffective education and growing increasingly isolated and upset.