What If The School Says The Child Cannot Be Included Because He/She Cannot Benefit Academically From Instruction In The General Education Class?

According to South Carolina's Office of Exceptional Children Policies and Procedures released April 6, 2009, the school should not make such an assertion. The Federal District Court in Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland (1992), said the law requires educating a child with disabilities in a general education classroom if the child can receive a satisfactory education there, even if it is not the best academic setting for the child. The court looked at whether the child's IEP goals and objectives could be met in the classroom by adapting the curriculum, or by providing supplementary aids and services. The school district in Holland argued that a general education classroom would not be apppropriate for a student if that would require significant changes to the general curriculum for the child. However, the court rejected the school's view. It said that students with disabilities may require and be entitiled to substantial curriculum changes to be sure they benefit from being in the general education class. The court stated that "modification in the curriculum for a student with a disability, even dramatic modification, has nonsignificance in and of itself. The IDEA, in its provision for the IEP process, contemplates that the academic curriculum may be modified to accommodate the individual needs of students with disabilities."

"[IDEA] does not require states to offer the same educational experience to a student with disabilities as is generally provided for students without disabilities... To the contrary, states must address the unique needs of a child with disabilities, recognizing that the student may benefit differently from education in the regular classroom than other students... In short, the fact that a child with disabilties will learn differently from his or her education within the regular classroom does not justify exclusion from that enfironment." Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (3rd Cir. 1993).

If an entirely different curriculum is needed for the child's alternate goals, it needs to be determined if appropriate special education supports (for both the child and teacher) can be most appropriately provided within the context of the general education classroom. It is not the intent to have the general education teacher devote all or most of his/her time to the child with a disability nor to modify the general education curriculum beyond recognition.