The inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classes is an emotional topic for parents, and educators. A recent court action has stirred up more feelings.

		Tina Calabro writes frequently on disability issues (tina.calabro@verizon.net). Pam DeGeorge is a registered nurse and board member of the Education Law Center. Both are parents of children with disabilities.

In the late 1980s, the parents of elementary school student Lydia Gaskin had a disagreement with the Carlisle Area School District near Harrisburg. The issue: Where would Lydia, who has Down Syndrome, receive instruction -- in a regular class or a special class?

Lydia's parents favored the regular class; the school district disagreed. But Lydia had a right -- first articulated in federal law in 1975, and reaffirmed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1991, 1997 and 2004 -- to receive her education in the "Least Restrictive Environment."

The Gaskins challenged the school district and prevailed. Their daughter went on to receive most of her education in regular classrooms. Today, at age 22, she has the kind of life her parents hoped inclusion would lead to -- she works, volunteers and takes classes at Harrisburg Community College.

The struggle to secure Lydia Gaskin's place in a regular classroom became the basis of a class-action lawsuit claiming that Pennsylvania school districts violate federal laws protecting students' right to be educated in what's termed the "Least Restrictive Environment."

After 11 years of litigation, the case reached settlement last fall. The Gaskin settlement requires the Department of Education to improve its monitoring of school districts to ensure that regular classrooms are considered for special education students before removing them to more restrictive settings.

Also, the agency must help school districts become more capable of educating special education students in regular classrooms. Over the next five years, officials will identify districts with low rates of inclusion, deliver assistance and check progress.

For many, the Gaskin settlement is celebrated as major step forward. But for others, it has aroused fear -- specifically, that students with the most significant disabilities will be forced into regular classrooms, without regard to their needs or those of their classmates and teachers.

That fear is unfounded. Individual needs will continue to be the center of decisions about where students receive their education.

Instead, the Gaskin settlement is sharply focused on making sure that educators understand their legal responsibility to open the doors of regular classes to special education students and provide an effective education for all students in that setting.

Three decades after the landmark Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 guaranteed the right of students with disabilities to a Free and Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment, controversy persists about the inclusion of special education students in regular classrooms.

Some people wonder: Why is inclusion important? Why do some parents fight for it? Does it lower standards for non-disabled students, or interfere with a teacher's ability to pay attention to all pupils equally?

Simply put, inclusive education challenges the assumption that students with disabilities must be taught in segregated classrooms. It suggests that they may benefit from the academic and social expectations of regular classes.

Studies have shown that inclusion has no adverse effect on the academic achievement of the other students. In fact, inclusive schools tend to be successful schools where kindness and acceptance of diversity prevails.

In the earliest days of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, "inclusion" generally meant that students with disabilities were entitled to attend their neighborhood schools. Many of these students were members of segregated classrooms.

Since the 1970s, inclusion has come to mean membership in regular classes -- not just occupying physical space in the room but meaningful participation in lessons and activities.

We know much more about teaching all students -- not just those with disabilities -- than we did three decades ago. Improved instruction strategies, services and technology make it possible for diverse learners to reach their potential in regular classrooms.

Dissemination of this growing body of knowledge is the core of the Gaskin settlement. Alas, many educators are not up to speed on creating inclusive classrooms. Many even persist in questioning the very premise of inclusion.

These educators need to move beyond asking if inclusion is "right" and to acknowledge that students have a right to inclusion.

The Gaskin Settlement not only provides the opportunity to improve education, but to strengthen the civil rights philosophy that underlies the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and, more recently, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These laws affirm a deep-rooted American value that opportunity should be available to all, excluding no one.

The settlement also calls attention to the slow but steady path to increased human dignity and social justice that people with disabilities have traveled in our society over the last several decades. Only recently have we begun to respect their right to appropriate education, preparation for adulthood and a decent quality of life.

The Gaskin settlement takes Pennsylvania in a positive direction. Don't be afraid of it.