Students with significant disabilities continue to be among the most segregated in schools. In this article, we argue that the principles of least restrictive environment and involvement and progress in the general curriculum have been interpreted in ways that perpetuate segregation, rather than increasing students' access to meaningful curriculum in inclusive educational contexts. We examine this issue from three broad perspectives: federal policy related to least restrictive environment, interpretations of policies related to involvement and progress in the general curriculum, and the implementation of policies related to assessment of grade-level standards. We discuss implications of each of these issues for providing and increasing involvement and progress in general education contexts and content.

In this review, we applied Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to examine factors that support or restrict access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities. We organize the literature in relationship to factors within the micro-, meso-, macro-, exo-, and chronosystems that influence decisions about access to the general curriculum for individual students. We discuss these factors in relationship to placement, instructional contexts, and instructional content. Implications for research and practice are provided.

Teacher preparation for inclusive education of students with significant disabilities requires an understanding of the requisite skills and dispositions to be taught during the teacher preparation period. Given the relative scarcity of inclusive placements for this population, as well as limited research-based teacher preparation practices to promote inclusive education, a Delphi study was completed to query expert faculty on the priority skills and activities used in teacher preparation. Consensus emerged through the Delphi study over three rounds of surveys to faculty, centering on essential skills of special education teachers, practices used by faculty to teach and evaluate these skills, and conditions that support and constrain teacher development of these essential skills. Although faculty largely supported research-based practices, new areas emerged, including teacher leadership skills. Implications for research and practice are included.

The TASH Inclusive Education National Committee responded to Horner and Dunlap’s call to ensure that future research integrates inclusive values with strong science by developing an inclusive education national research advocacy agenda. Qualitative methods were implemented to answer three questions: (a) What is the state of inclusive education research? (b) What research still must be done? and (c) What are recommendations for a national inclusive education research advocacy agenda? The findings include 15 areas organized within three domains advocating for continued research across systems-level capacity building, building and classroom capacity, and student learning and development. Implications for research and policy reform are discussed.

No abstract