LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT,INCLUSION,AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A LEGAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and regulations implementing the law provide for a free, appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for children with disabilities. However, neither the law nor the regulations delineate how school districts are to determine the least restrictive environment. This uncertainty has led to conflicts over interpretations of LRE; these conflicts have resulted in a number of court cases that have clarified the meaning of the mandate. The United States Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 5th, 9th, and 11th circuits have issued rulings in cases concerning the LRE mandate. The results of this litigation show that IDEA does not compel the placement of students with disabilities in the regular education classroom, but, rather, fully supports the continuum of placements. The courts have held that students with disabilities should be educated in regular education settings, but only when such settings are appropriate to the students' educational and social needs. Additional criteria for determining the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities should include consideration of the needs of other students in the class in which the student is to be placed. Principles extrapolated from these cases offer guidance to special educators making decisions regarding LRE.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartlett, L. D. (1993). Mainstreaming: On the road to clarification. Education Law Reporter, 76, 17–25.

Braaten, S. , Kauffman, J. , Braaten, B. , Polsgrove, L. , & Nelson, C. M. (1988). The Regular Education Initiative: Patent medicine for behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 55, 21–27.

Daniel, R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).

Dubow, S. (1989). Into the turbulent mainstream—A legal perspective on the weight to be given to the least restrictive environment in placement decisions for deaf children. Journal of Law and Education, 18, 215–228.

Fuchs, D. , & Fuchs, L. S. (1991). Framing the REI debate: Abolitionists versus conservationists. In J. W. Lloyd , N. N. Singh , & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 241–255). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Fuchs, D. , & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.

Greer v. Rome City School District, 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991).

Hardman, M. L. , Drew, C. L. , Egan, M. W. , & Wolf, B. (1993). Human exceptionality: Society, school, and family (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Holland decision keeps cost an unlikely factor in LRE cases. 1994. The Special Educator, 9, 189–190.

10.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.§ 1400--1485 (1990).

11.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.1--300.589.

12.

Lane, J. (1992). The use of the least restrictive environment principle in placement decisions affecting school-age students with disabilities. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 69, 291–322.

13.

Lieberman, L. (1990). REI: Revisited … again. Exceptional Children, 56, 561–562.

14.

Lipsky, D. K. , & Gartner, A. (1991). Restructuring for quality. In J. W. Lloyd , N. N. Singh , & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 43–56). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

15.

Lloyd, J. W. , Singh, N. N. , & Repp, A. C. (1991). The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

16.

Northrup, L. R. , & Oxendine, L. W. (1987). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act: The benefits and burdens of mainstreaming capable handicapped children in regular classrooms. Mercer Law Review, 38, 903–924.

17.

Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon School District, 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).

18.

Osborne, A. G. (1992). The IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate: Implications for public policy. Education Law Reporter, 74, 369–380.

19.

Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).

20.

Stafford, R. (1978). Education for the handicapped: A senator's perspective. Vermont Law Review, 3, 71–76.

21.

Stainback, S. B. , & Stainback, W. C. (1992). Schools as inclusive communities. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (pp. 29–43). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

22.

Tucker, M. , & Goldstein, B. (1993). Legal rights of persons with disabilities: An analysis of federal law. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

23.

Turnbull, H. R. (1993). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (4th ed.). Denver: Love.

24.

Update on pending appeals. (1993). The Special Educator, 8, 261–265.

25.

Vergason, G. A. , & Anderegg, M. L. (1992). Preserving the least restrictive environment. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (pp. 45–54). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.