In their 1992 article, Simpson and Sasso argued that the indiscriminate inclusion of all students with autism in general education was neither beneficial nor progressive. They noted that most full-inclusion efforts have been "justified by references to the 'moral and just thing to do* rather than scientifically established benefits" (p. 1). Moreover, they argued that the full inclusion debate has too often been reduced to superficial arguments over who is right, who is moral and ethical, and who is a true advocate for children. Much of this simplistic posturing obscures the real issue (i.e., what is best for children) via claims of moral and ethical "high ground" and denouncements of "nonbelievers" as not knowing what is best and not caring about children and youth with disabilities. While perhaps effective in the short term, this process can lead to results that are directly opposite to those intended, including impediments to maximally effective programs for children and youth with autism. We are of the opinion that full inclusion of children and youth with autism is the right thing to do only if it benefits students with disabilities and their normally developing peers, or (ideally) if it is beneficial to both groups. That is, "the right thing to do," in our estimation, is thatwhich provides the most benefits, not something that someone or some group deems appropriate because it fits their value system, is congruent with a fashionable trend, or appears to be a suitable (albeit unsupported) alternative, (p. 4) Finally, Simpson and Sasso (1992) offered several recommendations for facilitating discussions, collaboration, and cooperative decision making related to inclusion of students with autism in general education settings: (a) Acknowledge individuals' positive regard for students with autism, independent of their full-inclusion viewpoint; (b) recognize that it is unrealistic to expect nondisabled students and regular education teachers and staff to independently and exclusively make all necessary adjustments to accommodate students with autism in full-time general education settings; (c) make full-inclusion decisions for students with autism on a case-by-case basis; (d) consider full inclusion as one placement option rather than the preferred choice for every student with autism;
(e) balance integration and functional-skill development needs for students with autism when making full-inclusion decisions; (f) consider the needs of both disabled and nondisabled students; and (g) view full-inclusion programs for students with autism as experimental placement options pending appropriate validation studies, (pp. 7-9)Although we strongly believe that the imprudent placement of any student with autism in a general education setting is inappropriate, we are nonetheless convinced that many children and youth with autism may be successfully assigned to general education settings, given the right conditions. Accordingly, we offer in this article a model and suggestions for facilitating successful placement of students wi...
