By law, students with autism are entitled to a free, appropriate, public education in the “least restrictive environment” that is “appropriate” for them. But exactly what environment that should be is an extremely tricky question. The educational placement of autistic students has given rise to explosive debates in newspapers, on twitter feeds, and during legislative sessions, as well as in EIP meetings, law courts, and even family gatherings. One reason for this is that every single autistic student is different, and what works for one, will almost by definition not work for others. But all too often, other factors—which should legally be irrelevant—come into play. One recent study, for example, has shown that individual state policies and finances may make as much difference as a student’s abilities in determining his or her placement.
The inclusion of autistic students in mainstream classes, alongside their neurotypical peers throughout the day, is theoretically the gold standard, the “least restrictive” of all educational environments. However, full inclusion is also the most contentious form of placement, and not usually for the right reasons. Emotion, ideology, and prejudice shape the arguments of both opponents and proponents of inclusion. 
On the one hand, it seems clear that full inclusion offers autistic children their best chance for a good education that can lead to college, employment, and independence. In every other setting (except, under some circumstances, the homeschool), educational offerings are much more limited and future opportunities restricted. Segregated special education classes and separate “autism schools” usually offer little in the way of real academics, even though they may be excellent at teaching functional living and social skills. As a result, parents who believe that their kids are capable of academic achievement are often prepared to fight like grizzly bears to keep their kids in the mainstream classroom for all or most of the day.
Grizzliness is necessary because while many teachers and school administrators support inclusion whenever possible, other educators—along with some public figures and some parents of neurotypical students—are vehemently opposed to it. The reasons given for this vary, but the central claim is that autistic students (usually all lumped together in these arguments, despite the huge differences among them) behave in ways that are disruptive to their classmates and the school.
According to a 1994 memorandum from the federal Office of Special Education, excessively disruptive behavior can be used as a rationale to remove a child from an inclusive educational setting:
If a student with a disability has behavioral problems that are so disruptive in a regular classroom that the education of other students is significantly impaired, the needs of the disabled student cannot be met in that environment.
However, before making such a determination, school districts must ensure that consideration has been given to the full range of supplementary aids and services that could be provided to the student in the regular educational environment to accommodate the unique needs of the disabled student. If the placement team determines that even with the provision of supplementary aids and services, that student’s IEP could not be implemented satisfactorily in the regular educational environment, that placement would not be the LRE placement for that student at the particular time, because her or his unique educational needs could not be met in that setting. 
But precisely what behaviors reach the “so disruptive” threshold? And what proportion of autistic students actually do disrupt classes any more than their neurotypical classmates? These questions will be the subject of the next few posts.
 Jennifer Kurth, “Educational Placement of Students with Autism,” Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 30 (2015), pp. 249-56.
 Note, for example, the over-the-top language found on journalist Richard Moore’s Autism page: http://www.rmmoore1.com/autism. He describes autism as an “epidemic” and compares it to a natural disaster: “Now, in the United States and around the globe, a powerful earthquake of arguable origin has set off yet another health tsunami, which at this very moment is racing across the ocean of our lives, already affecting millions and millions, with millions more still in its path. This time it is a neurological disorder called autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder…” In writing about education, Moore insists that autistic students (all lumped together) simply “learn differently” than neurotypical or even other special needs students do. He describes demands for inclusion as largely driven by ideology (while ignoring the “different and less” ideology that drives his own writing).
 E.g., the post “Autism and IEPs and Grizzly Mommas . . . Oh My!!” on the Autism Sparkles blog: https://autismsparkles.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/autism-and-ieps-and-grizzly-mommas-oh-my/. Bear in mind (pun intended), that these ferocious parents are not always right—sometimes the mainstream classroom is simply intolerable for their children, who would be better served as home (if possible), or in a special education classroom with additional academic programming to suit their needs. More on this below.
 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, “Questions and Answers on Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Requirements of the Idea,” November 23, 1994.