Autism and Inclusion 1
The Efficiency of Educating Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Inclusive Classrooms Sara Portoghese Elon University
Autism and Inclusion 2 With the recent increase in number of children being diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, it is important to address how these children will be educated and where their education will occur. The major debate in today’s society is to what extent inclusion should be taken and at what expense. If full inclusion prevails as the dominant philosophy in the education of the disabled, children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder will suffer since many inclusive classrooms do not provide autistic children with positive learning environments due to the lack of individual attention, teacher training, materials, and support. Since inclusion also seeks to promote socialization and acceptance, both of which are extremely difficult for autistic children to gain, the inclusive classroom setting has the potential to be harmful to the educational process of autistic children; therefore, decreases regarding inclusion should be approached on an individual basis instead of as a general policy for all disabled children, especially the autistic. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a developmental disorder that is usually diagnosed in children by age three and is marked by severe impairment in communication, social, and emotional functioning. The term autism comes from the Greek word autos, which means self. Eugene Bleuler, a Swiss psychiatrist, first introduced the term in the first half of the 20th century. Two symptoms of autistic behavior common in autistic children are “extreme aloneness” and “preoccupation with the preservation of sameness” (Kavale & Mostert, 2004, p. 99). Autism Spectrum Disorder is a general term, which encompasses five different disorders: autism, Asperger syndrome (AS), Rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). In all but one of the five different disorders of ASD, studies show there is a higher prevalence for autistic spectrum disorders in males than in females. It is estimated that 60 per 10,000 children have some type of ASD and more specifically, 8 to 30 per 10,000 children have autism. Children with Asperger
Autism and Inclusion 3 syndrome are more common, with 36 to 48 instances per 10,000 children (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2006). For the purposes of this paper, I am going to focus on children with autism and Asperger syndrome, since they are the most common forms of ASD and they are more likely to be educated in inclusive classroom. Autism is often characterized by severe cognitive deficits and associated with mental retardation. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), autism is a developmental disability affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that affects a child’s performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences (Kavale & Mostert, 2004, p. 100). Asperger syndrome (AS) can be thought of as a milder form of autism. Individuals who have AS have higher intelligence and communication skills than those with autism; however, they have many difficulties in social interactions and display many characteristics of the other autism spectrum disorders (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2006). Inclusion is a term used to refer to a recent movement, which advocates that the disabled should be considered equally valued members of the community. “Inclusion is a philosophy that urges schools, neighborhoods, and communities to welcome and value everyone, regardless of differences…An inclusive environment is created by building a system that meets everyone’s needs from the onset, and inclusion extends beyond the K-12 school boundaries to people of all ages with disabilities” (Renzaglia, Karonen, Drasgow, & Stoxen, 2003, p. 1). In regards to education, inclusion advocates that every child should be treated equally within the school culture (Dybvik, 2004). The basic principle of inclusion can be traced back to the “normalization principle,” which was developed by Bengt Nirje, an intellectual in the disabled field, in 1969. The normalization principle stressed that the mentally retarded should have access to the same
Autism and Inclusion 4 lifestyle as mainstream society. The principle stressed three important perspectives that Nirje believed the disabled deserved: equality, high quality of life, and basic human rights (Renzaglia et al, 2003). In the past, children with disabilities, such as autism and Asperger syndrome, were often denied access to the public school systems and forced into special education schools or programs. However, in 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which guaranteed all children, regardless of disability, access to a “free and appropriate public education” in the “least restrictive environment.” The drawback of this new legislation was that once disabled children were admitted into the public school system, the common practice was to pull the disabled child out of the regular classroom and put him/her in a “resource room,” where they would receive individual attention with teachers who were more adequately trained to deal with their disability. But sometimes these teachers were not adequately trained and education became a struggle, especially for the autistic child, whose disability is often accompanied by varying degrees of mental retardation, learning disorders, or other complications which can complicate the learning process (Dybvik, 2004). The idea of inclusion was revisited with the concept of the Regular Education Initiative (REI) that began in the late 1980s. Madeline Will, former assistant secretary of the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, was a strong advocate for REI. She believed that the regular classroom possessed everything a disabled child could possibly need and felt that regular classroom teachers would need to change very little to accommodate them. She believed assignments could be modified from the regular curriculum to fit the need of the disabled child (Dybvik, 2004). Will’s strong focus on the regular classroom in 1986 laid the foundation for the inclusion movement in the not too distant future.
Autism and Inclusion 5 The Education for All Handicapped Children was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1990 and in 1997, the reauthorization of IDEA affirmed the federal government’s commitment to inclusion. IDEA generally reflects the same principles that had been established in 1975: disabled children should be educated “to the maximum extent possible” in the “least restrictive environment.” It was only in 1990 that autism was included as a disability, which secured that children with ASD could have access to public education and the 1997 reauthorization reaffirmed that commitment. Autism is the fastest growing disability in the U.S. and the number of children diagnosed with autism has increased fivefold during the 1990s alone (Dybvik, 2004). One interesting fact about IDEA is that while many people who support the idea of inclusion have used IDEA as a means to ensure access to general education classrooms, the word inclusion is never mentioned in the wording of the actual law. Rather, the “least restrictive environment” (LRE) has simply been interpreted as the general education classroom and the idea that all children, regardless of disability, should have access to education is interpreted as inclusion (Dybvik, 2004). That interpretation of IDEA has sparked a nationwide debate over the inclusion of children in public school systems across the country. The debate about education for the disabled in today’s society had turned from whether or not public schools should accept children with disabilities to how should the disabled children be taught and what environment provides them with the best education. Those who advocate for inclusion of disabled children in the regular classroom no matter what the child’s disability are known as full inclusionists. Full inclusionists are also in support of the eradication of special education schools and programs. Those who oppose full inclusion but support the idea of including children in the regular classroom as long as they are capable of succeeding are known
Autism and Inclusion 6 as partial inclusionists (Grider, 1995). Partial inclusion is much more popular in society since it allows for choice whereas the only option present in full inclusion is the regular classroom. Many inclusionists in today’s society see inclusion as more than simply allowing disabled students access to education in the general classroom; they see inclusion as a way to promote socialization and the acceptance of disabled students, especially among their peers. The idea of inclusion differs from that of mainstreaming, which was first introduced with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975. Mainstreaming simply focuses on including children with disabilities in the regular classroom setting for portions of the school day with the major responsibility for the disabled child’s education remaining with special educators. The introduction of mainstreaming has long been seen as a step forward in terms of civil rights for the disable; however, the main problem with mainstreaming, and now with inclusion, is that research on the importance of special education is being pushed aside so that an ideology, which focuses on equality for all, can be accomplished (Kavale & Mostert, 2004). A concern of the disabled, and especially of parents who have disabled children, is that because society has switched its focus from that of the individual to an ideology, their children will suffer the consequences. One mother of an autistic child notes the problems that autistic children have in included classrooms. “Autistic needs aren’t subtly different from mainstream needs, they’re diametrically opposed. Autism is above all, a social disorder” (Moore, 2005, p. 1). Since children with autism and AS possess some degree of a social disorder as part of their disability, it is often very difficult for them to form the types of relationships that other children their age are capable of forming in the regular classroom setting. While their have been cases where children with autism and AS benefit in terms of developing more normal social skills, overall, the autistic child is
Autism and Inclusion 7 much more introverted and dependent on schedules and routines than non-autistic peers. Many times they even lack the ability to understand the importance of close relationships and friendships with their peers. So if one of the goals of inclusion is to promote the socialization of autistic children in the regular classroom, inclusionists will have to accept the fact that this goal may be unattainable for many children with autism and AS. The idea of special education schools and programs offer several advantages to disabled children, especially to those who are autistic and learn best when they receive individual attention. The class sizes are very small; in fact the Burger Center, a school for autistic children in Michigan that is part of the public school system, has an average class size of five. The teachers at the school are all assisted by an aide, which allows them to give more individual attention to each student. The teacher is certified in special education and is specially trained in how to properly teach autistic children. The class strives to teach social skills and life-skills to the students in addition to the regular lessons that are taught within the general education curriculum. The teachers are also able to interrupt their pre-planned lessons more easily to give an impromptu social lesson whenever a situation arises that needs to be carefully explained to the autistic students, who have a harder time understanding social concepts (Walsh-Sarnecki, 1998). The parents who send their children to special education schools, such as Burger Center in Michigan, are not opposed to the idea of inclusion, rather they simply recognize the fact that, due to their disability, their children need a different kind of education than what the public school system has to offer in terms of inclusive settings. Many public schools do have selfcontained classrooms and resource rooms for children with autism and AS, but sometimes parents feel that it is not enough to help their child. Dennis Debbaudt, who is a parent of a child
Autism and Inclusion 8 at the Burger Center, says, “There’s inclusion and there’s reality. They need an education about how to negotiate the rest of their life” (Walsh-Sarnecki, 1998). The idea of tailoring education to the needs of the student goes along with an idea presented by Paul Longmore in his 2003 book, Why I Burned My Book and Other Essays on Disability, which discusses the idea of being equal and different. The main idea of his argument is that for many disabled people, they need different accommodations to have equal opportunities in society, but many Americans have a hard time accepting the idea of being equal and different. He points out that many times in society, instead of offering accommodations for the disabled that would allow equal access, we simply grant them equal opportunities but don’t provide them with the equipment they might need or the ability to access buildings, buses, and so on (Longmore, 2003, p. 219). The same seems to be true for disabled students who attend special education schools. The students are taught a curriculum that is different from the mainstream but it still achieves the same purpose, which is education for the future. The only difference is that the curriculum is tailored to fit the needs of the disabled student versus forcing them to conform to how society says students should be educated. However, like I mentioned earlier, there are differences between those who advocate for full inclusion versus partial inclusion. Those who favor full inclusion advocate three main points to support their position. The first is that disabled students who are put into regular classrooms will be more accepted by their peers and be able to experience more meaningful friendships with their nondisabled peers in the general education setting. Secondly, full inclusionists believe that students receive better academic instruction in the general classroom than they could ever receive in a special education setting. Lastly, they believe that parents who put their children in general education classrooms will develop higher expectations for their child’s academic success
Autism and Inclusion 9 if they are placed in an inclusive classroom (Grider, 1995). These arguments of the full inclusionists are based on the idea that every child, disabled or not, deserves an equal education in the same learning environment. Several problems arise for autistic students with the full inclusion model of education. First, it is important to note that for many children who have autism, the prognosis is very poor, meaning that 90 percent of children who have ASD will continue to have significant problems well into adulthood (Kovale & Mostert, 2004). Parents are aware of these problems and have had to face the difficult task of coming to terms with the fact their child will never develop normally. So instead of solely forcing the idea of regular education onto their children, many parents, such as Debbaudt, who was quoted earlier, recognize the importance of altering education to best meet the needs of their child. Also, as mentioned earlier, many autistic children have trouble forming relationships with their peers so this goal of full inclusion is not necessarily an advantage for students with autism, since part of their disability is a social disorder. I will address the problem of instruction in the general education classroom a little later in the paper. The advocates of partial inclusion are also considered opponents of full inclusion. They differ from full inclusionists in that they support the idea of all children being included in the public school system but they believe there should be a choice available for parents between the general education classroom and special education schools. There is a tremendous difference between these two options and since every student is different, one option may work better than the other for different students (Grider, 1995). Partial inclusionists, overall, are much more open to the fact that children may do better in different educational settings. Partial inclusionists oppose full inclusion for several reasons and one of the most important is that general education teachers lack the necessary training to teach disabled
Autism and Inclusion 10 students. Many general education teachers received little or no training in special education when they were getting their teaching license so they do not have the appropriate credentials to properly teach students who significantly differ from the normal student. Going along the same line, those who oppose full inclusion doubt whether any individual attention for the disabled student can take place in a general education classroom since the teacher is also responsible for all the regular students. They also point out that many disabled high school students need to have more of a life-skills focus in their education so they can be highly functioning members of society after they graduate. Opponents of full inclusion also fear that students who are forced into a general education setting maybe become frustrated in an environment that is not supportive of their needs and suffer unnecessary failure and/or learn very little new knowledge in a setting that is not conducive to their needs (Grider, 1995). Overall, the partial inclusionists feel that the negative effects of full inclusion are not worth the risks to the disabled student. Full inclusion opponents worry that those who are in favor of full inclusion disregard the severity of some disabling conditions and ignore the fact that some students need to learn in special education settings that have been designed with their disability and best interest in mind (Grider, 1995). If full inclusionists fail to recognize the ramifications of their actions and beliefs, many children who heavily depend on special education could face the end of the type of education that works for them. Bernard Rimland (1995), is one such parent who believes in the partial inclusion model and he expressed his views in the article “Inclusive Education: Right for Some.” He states that there is a fine line between inclusion and over-inclusion. “If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be ‘included’ in a regular classroom? Certainly not…Full inclusion means abolishing the special
Autism and Inclusion 11 education provisions that are vitally important to autistic children” (Rimland, 1995, p. 290). Many other parents and professionals share Rimland’s point of view. It seems as though the concept of ‘place’ has taken priority over ‘how’ disabled students should be taught (Dybvik, 2004). So in essence, the main debate in society is not whether or not the idea of inclusion is right or wrong but is it effective in educating the disabled student, and more specifically, for the purposes of this paper, the autistic student. Parents of children with autism and AS simply want to keep their options open when it comes to deciding what it best for their child educationally. Diane Twachtman-Cullen, a speech pathologist at the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Consultation Center in Cromwell, Connecticut, has developed what she calls “the worst practices in inclusion” list. She provides a list of practices that she believes creates a negative impact on the student who is placed in the included classroom. Some of the items on her list include: insisting on inclusion at all costs, settling for physical presence in the classroom, providing little or no training to staff, giving priority to the inclusive education model over the individual needs of students, watering down curriculum, and failing to teach peers about disability (Dybvik, 2004). Thus if inclusion is instituted badly, the student and the system can both suffer, since inclusion is measured simply by placement of the child and not by educational outcomes. Full inclusionists advocate that students in an included classroom will receive better academic instruction in the regular classroom than in a special education classroom; however, one of the most important factors in determining whether or not a disabled student will succeed in the general classroom is the teacher. The teacher’s efforts towards providing an effective learning environment and an altered curriculum that works for all the students is vital for the success of the inclusion education model. In one study of teachers who were questioned about
Autism and Inclusion 12 their thoughts on inclusion, many expressed concerns about their lack of training and their fear of having to take care of severely handicapped children. One general education teacher was quoted as saying, “I do not feel qualified to work with special needs children. I do not have the patience, qualifications [or] willingness to take care of students incapable of taking care of themselves…It would be changing my job description in the middle of my game” (Grider, 1995, p. 6). Many teachers recognize they do not have the proper qualifications to teach special needs children, yet they are forced to try to adopt their curriculum accordingly and include them as much as possible in the general education classroom. Many of the general education teachers expressed passionate responses about the fear of teaching disabled students in their general education classroom. One special education teacher in Grider’s article in particular feared that the inclusion of her special education students in the regular classroom would cause problems for the students and even for her. She feared that her job would be transformed from educator in the special education setting to babysitter in the regular education setting (Grider, 1995). This is especially true since there are no guidelines on how inclusion should be done; therefore, it seems natural to put the burden on the person who has some degree of training with special education students and force them to handle the behavioral problems and adaptive techniques while the regular education teacher continues to try to teach to the nondisabled students. General education teachers also felt that if they are going to have to provide inclusive classrooms, they need the right conditions and materials to do so. This includes smaller class sizes so they can better meet the needs of every student, an increase in the number of aides in the classroom, more money for classroom materials, and a large increase in the number of hours they spend in in-service and training (Grider, 1995). Without these materials and the dedication of the
Autism and Inclusion 13 teacher, the inclusion method is bound to fail, especially if the teachers are not willing to put forth the necessary effort to make inclusion work in their classroom. While the level of effectiveness of inclusion is difficult to measure due to the diversity of disabilities and lack of empirical evidence for or against inclusion, the most concrete evidence will be in the educational development of the children currently enrolled in inclusion programs (Dybvik, 2004). Partial inclusionists use this lack of evidence to their advantage and argue that since there is a lack of empirical research either way for inclusion, educational options for parents and disabled students should remain in place. Bernard Rimland expresses this thought in his article. I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options (Rimland, 1995, p. 291). The good news is that many parents do still have options for their children in terms of education, despite the pressure from inclusionists to shut down special education schools, such as the Burger Center in Michigan. The parents’ protests and letters to the school board have kept the school open but the same thing is happening all around the country and with many school board officials and special education program directors favoring inclusion, parents may not have their options for long. Steve Bergeron, executive director of the Michigan Society for Autistic Children, was quoted as saying, “Segregated facilities are a thing of the past” (Trimer, A3). While Bergeron’s views may seem progressive, the disappearance of segregated facilities has the potential to leave a lot of students without the least restrictive learning environment. Stanley Diamond (1995), author of the article, “Special Education and the Great God, Inclusion” says, “If we unwittingly
Autism and Inclusion 14 cause the valuable private special education schools to disappear, the price will be paid by relatively few educators but the cost will be enormous for a generation of exceptional young people who deserve our very best” (Diamond, 1995, p. 253). Even without the empirical research or full support of the community, full inclusion seems to be gaining acceptance, especially with school administrators and several influential leaders in communities throughout the country, but why, after all the issues that have been brought to the forefront on the issue? Money, of course, is a main factor in the debate over inclusion. In the article “Inclusive Education and School Restructuring,” Dorothy Lipsky and Alan Gartner argue that special education programs are too costly and their “ineffectiveness” does not merit the amount of money being spent on them. They also argue that since inclusion, in their opinion, is not as expensive and more beneficial, the program should be adopted in the school systems (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996). However, Ann Dybvik (2004) points out that well implemented inclusion programs are usually more expensive than special education programs. The high costs are a result of the extra support that special education students need when they are accommodated into the regular classroom. Class sizes may need to be reduced, paraprofessionals need to be provided, staff needs to be trained, and supportive measures such as materials and adaptive equipment and technology may also need to be supplied, all of which can greatly increase the price of inclusive education. This is one of the major problems for inclusion: administrators believe that inclusion will be cheaper than special education and therefore implement the program poorly since they do not recognize the need to spend excess money on inclusion programs (Dybvik, 2004). Another reason inclusion is so heavily favored with regards to education is the belief that the social aspects of inclusion are important for disabled students. Many proponents of inclusion
Autism and Inclusion 15 see inclusive education as an opportunity to educate disabled students’ peers about acceptance of others who are different and help them understand how to appropriately deal with students who have disabilities (Dybvik, 2004). However, the peers of a disabled student must be taught how to respond to and deal with disabilities around them or else their response could be negative, which would be the opposite of the desired effect of inclusion. Efforts must be taken not only by the nondisabled students in the classroom, but also by parents of students in the class, teachers, and staff. In a recent study conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), researchers studied how nondisabled students responded to autistic students in their class. The study said, “Contact with typical peers is thought to be crucial in assisting children with autism to develop social and communicative skills, but physical placement of children with disabilities in inclusive educational settings alone is not sufficient for successful socialization” (Ochs, Kremer-Sadlik, Solomon, & Sirota, 2001, p. 400). The study observed two kinds of inclusion, negative and positive inclusion, and the distinction between the two was based on the “actions and stances displayed by others towards the affected children in their class” (Ochs et al, 2001, p. 401). Negative inclusion is defined as the exclusion of the autistic child from an activity due to oversight or rejection by the other students. This occurs most often when the teacher is not monitoring the social interactions between the students. Positive inclusion is defined as when normal students make an attempt to include the autistic child in a classroom activity. The results showed that when the parents of the autistic child made the school aware of the child’s disability and also made an attempt to educate the other students on the class, they acted more positively towards the autistic student. However, when parents only notified the school of the child’s autism and failed to educate the class about
Autism and Inclusion 16 how to deal with the effects of autism, they reacted more negatively towards the autistic student (Ochs et all, 2001). Overall, in order for normal students to socially accept autistic children in the regular classroom, the parents of the autistic child have to make a conscious effort to try to educate their child’s classmates and teacher about how to appropriately deal with the effects of autism for the autistic student to at least have some degree of social acceptance. This affirms the fact that by simply placing autistic children in an inclusive classroom, they will not be benefited. And even though parents may long for their autistic children to develop friendships with normal students, it is important for them to recognize the limitations that the student experiences socially due to ASD. Another reason why inclusion is favored in today’s society is that the desire of inclusion proponents is to encourage and promote the equal treatment of all students, both in and out of the classroom. However, Grider (1995) states, “This is impossible” (Grider, 1995, p. 8). Students are not treated equally so as to encourage diversity and creativity. The same is true for disabled students who are placed in different educational settings depending upon the severity of their disability or personal preference. Greg Conderman, associate professor of special education at the University of Wisconsin, also argues that “supporters of inclusion have pursued ‘equal treatment instead of equal opportunity”’ (Dybvik, 2004, p. 49). So the treatment of all students equally has the potential to produce undesirable results. It is more important to provide equal opportunities and fair laws so that every student can have access to an appropriate and “equal” education. Grider quotes Gallagher on this topic as saying, “Fairness does not consist of educating all children in the same place at the same time [and with
Autism and Inclusion 17 the same curriculum] but in ensuring that the student has basic needs met and it traveling towards a well-thought-out career and a satisfying lifestyle� (Grider, 2001, p. 8; Gallagher, 1994, p. 528). When instituted properly, inclusion has the potential to be beneficial to many disabled students; however, it is important that inclusion be viewed on an individual basis since some students cannot thrive in an inclusive classroom. Many autistic children tend to perform better in special education classrooms since they can receive more one on one instruction in an environment that is more conducive to the student. It is important that special education remain as an option to students and parents since it is beneficial in many cases.
Autism and Inclusion 18 Reference List Diamond, S. C. (1995). Special Education and the Great God, Inclusion. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.). The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (247-253). Austin: Pro-ed. Dybvik, A. (2004). Autism and the Inclusion Mandate. Education Next. 1, 42-49. Grider, J. (1995). Full Inclusion: A Practitioner’s Perspective. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 10(4), 1-11. Hallahan, D. P. & Kauffman, J. M. (2006). Learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder. In Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education (10th ed.) (399-400). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Kavale, K. & Mostert, M. (2004). The Positive Side of Special Education: minimizing its fads, fancies, and follies. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation. Lipsky, D. K. & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusive Education and School Restructuring. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.). Controversial Issues Confronting SpecialEducation: Divergent Perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Longmore, P. (2003). The Second Phase: From Disability Rights to Disability Culture. Why I Burned My Book and Other Essays on Disability (p. 215-224). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Moore, C. (2005, June 10). Why Inclusion is Bad. Times Educational Supplement (London), p. 22. Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., Solomon, O., & Sirota, K. G. (2001). Inclusion as Social Practice: Views of Children with Autism. Social Development, 10(3), 399-419. Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E. & Stoxen, C. C. (2003). Promoting a Lifetime of
Autism and Inclusion 19 Inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 140-149. Rimland, B. (1995). Inclusive Education: Right for Some. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.). The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (289-292). Austin: Pro-ed. Trimer, M. (1989, November 19). School closing may limit options for autistic students. Detroit Free Press, 3A. Walsh-Sarnecki, P. (1998, June 9). Autistic teen chooses an environment where he knows he’ll be accepted. Detroit Free Press, p. 1G.