Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | BLIND-DEV: Development of Adaptive Hardware & Software for the Blind/VI" < [log in to unmask]> |
Date: | Sat, 25 May 2002 01:10:23 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:26:29 EDT
>Subject: integrated ed?
>
>Education and integration - Information Bulletin # 32 (May, 2002)
>
> Segregating children with disabilities in public educational programs is
>quite widespread and perpetuates the stigma that society attaches to
>disability, to say nothing about the inferior quality of education and how
>the segregation contributes to self-devaluation.
>
> By and large, the disability community has left parents to struggle
alone
>as individuals – not collectively, not as a civil rights issue, not as an
>issue that will plague us for generations. School districts and state
>departments of education have not been held accountable for this
segregation.
>Rather, they have turned the IDEA upside down and forced parents to show why
>their children should be integrated, instead of the school district to
>proving why children with accommodations cannot be integrated.
>
> In Information Bulletin # 20, see www.stevegoldada.com (click on
>archives), we focused on the segregation of children with orthopedic
>impairments (only because there is no excuse why ANY of these children are
>segregated).
>
> This information bulletin takes a five year overview regarding to what
>extent school districts have increased integrating disabled children in
>mainstream (general) education. We wanted to know what is the percentage of
>children labeled "special ed" who are integrated in general education
>classrooms for more than 80 percent of the school day.
>
> There's good news and bad news: while there has been progress in
>integrating children, segregation is still widespread and unnecessary.
>
> What follows is a list by State. For each state, there is the
percentage
>of children (again only with orthopedic impairments) for school years
1995-96
>and for 1999-2000.
>
>Alabama from 50% to 53% integrated.
>Alaska from 56% to 52% integrated.
>Arizona from 50% to 54% integrated.
>Arkansas 42% / 39 %
>California 28% / 32%
>Colorado 76% / 82%
>Connecticut 75% / 80%
>Delaware 26% / 33%
>D. C. 0%. / 3%
>Florida 26% / 46%
>Georgia 31% / 33%
>Hawaii 51% / 52%
>Idaho 68% / 66%
>Illinois 24% / 37%
>Indiana 75% / 76%
>Iowa 60% / 60%
>Kansas 73% / 79%
>Kentucky 50% / 52%
>Louisiana 26% / 48%
>Maine 76% / 69%
>Maryland 39% / 40%
>Massachus 65% / 71%
>Michigan 53% / 53%
>Minnesota 67% / 70%
>Mississippi 11% / 26%
>Missouri 17% / 46%
>Montana 77% / 74%
>Nebraska 65 % / 67%
>Nevada 59% / 56%
>New Hampshire 42% / 78%
>New Jersey 38% / 60%
>New Mexico 42% / 48%
>New York 59% / 65%
>North Carolina 56% / 66%
>North Dakota 68% / 75%
>Ohio 42% / 60%
>Oklahoma 67% / 67%
>Oregon 74% / 59%
>Pennsylvania 14% / 27%
>Rhode Island 30% / 41%
>South Carolina 25% / 19%
>South Dakota 67% / 87%
>Tennessee 33% / 36%
>Texas 17% / 19%
>Utah 36% / 44%
>Vermont 87% / 89%
>Virginia 33% / 45%
>Washington 57% / 63%
>West Virginia 49% / 74%
>Wisconsin 45% / 41%
>Wyoming 58% / 70%
>
>United States 41% / 48%
>
>DON'T MOURN; ORGANIZE to pressure your state education departments and local
>school districts to defend even one percent unnecessary segregation.
>Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues
>
>Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at
>http://www.stevegoldada.com
>with a searchable Archive at this site.
>
|
|
|