Abstract
Two diametrically opposed beliefs are held concerning the meaning of the least restrictive environment (LRE) when determining the class placements of students with disabilities. One group adheres to the placement philosophy that the LRE is always the general education setting. The other group believes that the LRE is where the students’ needs may best be met. The controversy concerning placement has resulted in a number of court cases that can provide guidance to individualized education program (IEP) teams when discussion of the LRE occurs. A checklist for use in IEP meetings is offered.
Keywords
Meeting the Mandate of the Least Restrictive Environment
The least restrictive environment (LRE) is one of the six major principles of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (2004; Murdick, Gartin, & Crabtree, 2007). The principle of the LRE can be traced to the “separate is never equal” doctrine found in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954). Subsequent litigation (Mattie T. v. Holladay, 1981; Wyatt v. Stickney, 1972) dealt with the equity issue of placements when neither educational nor rehabilitative services were provided. When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was originally enacted in 1975, the legislation included the assurance that all children with disabilities were to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) within the LRE. The LRE is a location where students with disabilities can receive an education and related services while still being educated in the regular classroom to the greatest extent possible. It is important that schools have available a series of alternative placements that are hierarchical, with the preferred setting as the regular classroom to special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions, and that there be supplemental services available to maintain students’ placements in the LRE setting.
The latest revision of IDEIA (2004) states in Article 8.2.3, “Special education is not a ‘place,’ but rather a set of services delineated in the student’s IEP [individualized education program].” This definition left those who were expecting the latest piece of legislation to more specifically define the LRE sorely disappointed (Hyatt & Filler, 2011). The lack of a definition in federal legislation or by the U.S. Supreme Court leaves room for interpretation of what constitutes the LRE for each student. Circuit courts left decisions regarding the LRE to educational professionals (school personnel) on the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), which stated that “courts lack the specialized knowledge and experience” needed to resolve “difficult questions of educational policy.” Thus, a student determined to be receiving FAPE in the LRE in one district may find his or her LRE different within another district. This is particularly true when the move is also between circuit court jurisdictions (Howard, 2004). These differences in LRE placement are especially a concern for IEP team members when determining what is appropriate for a student receiving special education services (Chinn, 2007; Howard, 2004; Tincani & Pierce, 2007). (For additional information and an overview of the LRE mandate and existing controversy, see Hyatt & Filler, 2011.)
Although the principle of educating children with disabilities in the LRE seems very clear, there is much debate as to the definition of LRE and how to implement the principle in school settings. In the literature, there appear to be two opposing ideologies concerning the LRE. One holds that the LRE is always the general education setting. The second ideology holds that the LRE is the setting in which a child’s needs can best be met. Varying beliefs of IEP team members may lead to differences in how each views the educational placement of a student and may also lead to unintentional violations of the LRE principle. In this article, we present a brief review of both ideologies, presenting common ground within the opposing views and providing teachers with strategies for applying the principle of the LRE in the school setting.
The Two Ideologies
Always in the General Education Setting
In the preamble to IDEIA (2004), Congress noted that research has demonstrated that having high expectations for children results in greater educational gains (§ 601[c][5][A]). In the legislation itself, IDEIA requires that children with disabilities be educated with children who do not have disabilities “to the maximum extent appropriate” (20 U.S.C. 1412[5][B]). For those who believe that the LRE is always the general education setting, IDEIA clearly indicates that the congressional intent was that the LRE exists only within the general education setting. Within the special education literature, supporters of the ideology that general education is always the LRE argue that misinterpretation of the specific language in the federal laws has convoluted the true meaning of the LRE. Additional justification for this ideology is based on federal regulations. Federal regulations on the LRE require that the removal of a student from a general education classroom must be justified (Hyatt & Filler, 2011; Rozalski, Stewart, & Miller, 2010). Placement in the general education setting needs no such clarification. Furthermore, Hyatt and Filler (2011) contended that in Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), the FAPE mandate was intended to provide special education students with equivalent learning opportunities and ensure that their services had educational benefit. According to this view of FAPE, students have the intrinsic right to be educated alongside same-age peers who are developing typically (Hyatt & Filler, 2011; Rozalski et al., 2010).
Also supporting the view that the LRE is always in the general education setting are the regulations requiring the development of a continuum of alternative placements (CAP) in each school district (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, § 300.551[b]). The CAP begins with the general education classroom and moves from the least restrictive setting to the most restrictive setting (Hyatt & Filler, 2011; Jiménez, Graf, & Rose, 2007; Rozalski et al., 2010; Rueda, Gallego, & Moll, 2000). Thus, the logical assumption on the basis of the CAP is that the least restrictive setting for all children is the general education classroom. Once the general education setting is considered the LRE, any further restrictive placement considerations along the CAP should focus on the appropriate identification of supplemental aids and services needed to support students within the general education setting (Jiménez et al., 2007).
Where the Child’s Needs Can Be Met
The opposing ideology in the literature defines the LRE as placement in a setting where a student’s needs can be met. Again, this ideology has a legal basis. As current legislation and regulations stand, the IEP team is responsible for determining what the LRE is for each student (Howard, 2004; Valentino, 2006). Under IDEIA, services must be provided in the LRE. However, services are based on individual needs as opposed to the type of disability. Although IDEIA clearly suggests the general education setting whenever possible, the LRE for each child is determined by the professional judgment of the IEP team (Palley, 2009).
Under IDEIA (2004), children with disabilities are to be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with their nondisabled peers, suggesting that the LRE is different for each child. The Supreme Court has demonstrated a preference for inclusion (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 1982). However, IDEIA also requires that schools meet the individual needs of children with disabilities. Children should not be placed in general education settings unless the IEP team determines that it is their LRE. In Roncker v. Walter (1983), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that when the same benefits could feasibly be provided in a public school, a segregated school is inappropriate. The school district was allowed to consider cost as a factor, even if the segregated services could provide superior educational services. In the Eight Circuit, the ruling in Mark A. v. Grant Wood Educational Agency (1986) supported the use of a segregated classroom as the LRE for a child. Again in the Eighth Circuit, the court found in A. W. v. Northwest R-1 School District (1987) that the school district was providing education in the LRE because of the marginal benefit provided by placing A. W. in an environment with nondisabled students to the “maximum amount possible.” Thus, both Eighth Circuit Courts supported the use of a segregated setting for students with disabilities on the basis of the marginal benefit accrued from public school placement, and both agreed that the decision should be left to the local school district.
Common Ground
After eligibility has been determined for a student, educators will have knowledge of
the student’s areas of strength,
present levels of academic achievement and functional performance,
the student’s educational needs,
assessment results, and
perspectives of students and parents.
This knowledge informs the development of a student’s IEP (Patterson, 2005), which in turn informs appropriate placement decisions (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). Although the debate over the definition of the LRE is contentious, there are similarities between the ideologies. Professionals on both sides of the debate
support the general principle of inclusion,
believe in meeting the needs of the child, and
strive to provide a free appropriate education to students with disabilities.
The controversy lies within the lack of a clear definition of the LRE. If the members of IEP teams do not believe that the LRE is the general education setting, are they at risk of not considering the general education setting as the first option? Some believe that the CAP guides IEP teams in determining the LRE, with planning always starting at the top of the continuum (the general education setting). If they are accurate in their beliefs, they believe that the risk of violating the LRE is minimized. Regardless, the special educator is often the team member most versed in IDEIA and the impact of the LRE on meeting the needs of children with disabilities. Therefore, special educators are ethically responsible for interpreting the LRE mandate and for guiding IEP teams in developing IEPs that meet those mandates. However, in some situations, administrators and school district representatives may overrule the information and recommendations presented by the special educator.
Strategies to Guide the IEP Team
Following are strategies special educators can use to guide an IEP team that enable legal and ethical compliance with the LRE mandate.
Strategy 1: Understand Case Law
Federal and circuit court decisions provide guidance and direction on implementing the principle of the LRE. Rozalski et al. (2010) provided an excellent overview of LRE case findings and introduced the resulting guiding principles of each case finding. The three most commonly known are the Roncker Portability Test, the Daniel Two-Part Test, and the Rachel H. Four-Factor Test. The Roncker Portability Test guides an IEP team to consider a nonsegregated setting (i.e., general education) if it appears that a segregated setting is being considered. IEP teams must consider the feasibility of providing the same services in the nonsegregated setting. The Daniel Two-Part Test requires an IEP team to consider the general education setting with supplemental aids and services and integration into the general education setting to the greatest extent possible. The Rachel H. Four-Factor Test requires an IEP team to consider the benefits of placement in the general education versus a special setting, the impact of placement in the general education setting on classmates, and the cost of placement. Table 1 provides a checklist of guiding questions that can be embedded into IEP discussions.
Least Restrictive Environment Checklist.
Strategy 2: Embed These Guiding Questions
During the introductory phase of the IEP meeting, tell the IEP team that you will be using a checklist to guide the team in determining the LRE for the student. This checklist will consist of questions that will assist the team with following the requirements of IDEIA when identifying the appropriate placement for the child. Whenever possible, embed the questions into the natural flow of the discussion so that the team can feel supported in its decision-making process. As a precaution, the special educator should share the LRE checklist either before or during the meeting with the local education agency representative before utilization with the IEP team. The goal of the checklist is to provide a frame for team members to use in selecting an appropriate environment in which the student with disabilities will be receiving an appropriate education through the use of supplement aids and services. The checklist should not be used as a means to question the intent of the IEP team; it should be used to guide discussion.
Strategy 3: Start With General Education
When determining placement, IEP teams should consider the possibility of the general education setting (Hyatt & Filler, 2011; Yell, 2012). From that point, teams need to examine the next setting on the CAP. Each setting should be considered individually, without skipping over a placement option (Rozalski et al., 2010; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). When examining a potential setting, the team should consider the environment augmented with supplemental aids and services before accepting or rejecting the setting. According to Yell (2012), supplementary aids and services encompass a broad range of options for use in the general education setting. By meeting the federal requirement for using supplementary aids and services, a child with a disability can be educated in the LRE, which complies with the provision of FAPE and provides the student with meaningful educational benefit (Yell, 2012).
The current reauthorization of IDEIA mandates access to the general education curriculum in terms of participation, progress, and involvement (Ryndak, Moore, Orlando, & Delano, 2009). If a team decides that a more restrictive environment (e.g., self-contained classroom, specialized school) is necessary for a student, then the student must be provided access to the general education curriculum and setting during the school day (Ryndak et al., 2009; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). If, after having access to general education curriculum with supplemental supports and services, the student with disabilities does not achieve academic benefits, a more restrictive setting may be selected by the IEP team (Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 1998).
Strategy 4: Special Education Is a Service
In practice, many educators will refer to special education in the context of where a child is placed (e.g., “He’s a resource kid,” “She’s in my autism classroom”). This manner of reference to special education as a placement is a direct negation of how special education has been defined: as a service (Hyatt & Filler, 2011). It may cause educators to make an inappropriate placement decision solely on the basis of a child’s label (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). Ensuring that a student has individualized services (e.g., related services, accommodations, modifications) is the founding principle of developing an IEP (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). Not every child with the same disability has the same needs; the IEP should reflect the needs of the individual child (Schwarz, 2007). The individualized services needed by the students are what drive the IEP and thus the placement decision (Yell, 1995). By removing the perception of special education as a placement, we can begin to first view special education as individualized services provided in the general education setting before considering more restrictive settings.
Conclusion
As of yet, educators have not reached consensus regarding the LRE. However, IDEIA (2004) clearly expresses a preference for students with disabilities to be educated alongside their typical peers (Hyatt & Filler, 2011; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). Too often, IEP teams make placement decisions without considering the general education environment as the starting point or without considering the use of supplemental aids and services before a more restrictive placement is considered (Weishaar, 1997). Individual ideological beliefs should not interfere with our obligation to work in the best interest of the children we serve. General education should always be our starting point when determining placement, regardless of a child’s disability. Likewise, the goal of providing an appropriate education must be met regardless of personal ideologies or administrative convenience. Educators can serve students with disabilities by reminding the IEP team of the legislation, regulations, and case law guiding the determination of the LRE.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.