This paper investigates a nationally publicized case in the debate over the best method of educating millions of children with severe disabilities. Using Fisher's narrative paradigm, the report analyzes four years of the extensive media coverage of the legal battles of Mark Hartmann's family over the education of an 11-year-old boy with autism. Hartmann's parents took the Board of Education in Loudoun County, Virginia, to court to reinstate him in a regular classroom. Much media attention focused on the story because it dramatized the issues concerning the educational debate about inclusion. The paper provides a synopsis of the narratives that address the central issues surrounding inclusive education. Through the press, competing interests told their stories to the public, hoping to win the moral high ground and persuade others of the "good reasons" that support their understanding of the costs or benefits of inclusion. Although the Hartmanns lost in court, this narrative analysis suggests that the family and its supporters provided more persuasive narrative themes in the news media's court of public opinion, thus advancing the national inclusion movement. (Contains 60 references.) (CR)