Reversing reverse mainstreaming

For almost five decades, school districts in the US have been required by federal law to integrate disabled students into mainstream classrooms. Many educational agencies, however, have also done the opposite: They have included non-disabled students in special education settings. This practice, now known as "reverse mainstreaming," has historical roots in 19th-century educational programs and is still used across the country. This article is the first to investigate reverse mainstreaming as a form of integration. Drawing on a historical account and a systematic analysis of hundreds of administrative decisions, this article documents the circumstances that gave rise to this practice and analyzes its normative underpinnings. In doing so this article exposes a conundrum: On the one hand, educators and judges have long justified reverse mainstreaming by pointing to its potential to reduce prejudice through structured interactions between disabled and non-disabled students. On the other hand, reverse mainstreaming often treats disabled students as inferior to their non-disabled peers and imposes mainstream norms at the expense of disability culture. Thus, rather than reducing prejudice, such structured interactions may perpetuate the very stigma and misconceptions they are designed to eradicate. Moreover, as this article details, reverse mainstreaming can lead to an inequitable distribution of scarce resources. Combining insights from social psychology and disability studies, this article proposes guidelines for legal and policy reform aimed at ensuring that intergroup interactions in educational settings take more egalitarian forms. As policymakers continue to grapple with desegregating America’s schools along race and class lines, these insights have important implications that extend beyond the disability arena.