In chapter 4, i argued that the courts should be more agnostic in determining whether the appropriate educational placement for a child is in the most integrated setting possible. I offered this argument from an anti-subordination perspective under which one would not presume that segregated tools are more effective than integrated tools in attaining substantive equality. Instead, I insisted that we consider what educational tools are most likely to be effective for each individual child and suggested that a “continuum of services” model under which remedies are chosen from a wide range of options would best serve the individual child.

Regrettably, some people might interpret my recommendations from Chapter 4 to suggest that I am opposed to integrated solutions. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. When the available evidence suggests that integration is the most appropriate tool, I am an avid fan of integration.

The higher education context can demonstrate how we, in fact, could do a better job of using more integrated tools while also serving the needs of a wide cross-section of students with disabilities. To make this argument, I will focus on one aspect of higher education – testing – with particular emphasis on testing within the law school context. Because I believe that the empirical evidence must be assessed rigorously in deciding what solutions are most appropriate, I have limited myself to that context. Much of my argument, however, would apply to other contexts.