The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been at the heart of federal special education law since its initial inception in 1975, then known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142). Under this mandate, all children in America, including those with disabilities, have a fundamental right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). There is a strong preference within IDEA for the integration and inclusion of students with disabilities in as many educational experiences as their nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. Additionally, the 2004 amendment of IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), re-emphasized the need for placement in the least restrictive environment possible, stating:
Each public agency must ensure that—(i) to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and (ii) special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(i)–(ii).
Because each student has individualized needs and will require a varying amount of support in order to benefit educationally, school districts must offer a continuum of services that range from least restrictive – which would be a general education classroom with peers who are not disabled– to most restrictive – often, placement in a residential treatment setting specifically for children with disabilities. There are also many possibilities in between these two extremes. Generally, the more restrictive the environment, the fewer opportunities the student has to interact with nondisabled peers. Education in too restrictive of an environment may have significant academic, social and behavioral impacts on a student; therefore, determination of the LRE for a student with disabilities is of utmost importance so that he or she may reap the benefits of integration to the fullest extent possible.
Despite the importance of this decision, the determination of the LRE for students often varies amongst school districts. This may be due to the vague language used in IDEA which school districts can use as a standard for making this decision. The law mandates that the members of the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team, including parents, ensure that placement decisions are based on the individual needs of the student and must include an explanation of the extent of the school day to which a child will participate with his or her nondisabled peers. Placement decisions should only be made after analyzing the unique needs of the student and once the necessary supports have been identified.
The least restrictive environment for one student will not necessarily be least restrictive for another. This decision must be made by considering the continuum of alternative placements, which include different settings as to where the child can receive services. This may include the general education class, a special education class, a special education school, home education, or hospital or residential placement [§300.115]. The team must first consider if the student can be satisfactorily educated in the general education classroom with appropriate aids, services, and supports. Supplementary services, such as resource room or itinerant instruction, in conjunction with general education placement must also be considered [§300.115]. This decision may not be made based on the child’s identified disabling condition or label. Location of staff or the convenience of using already existing programs within the school district may not be used as a basis for placement decision (Rebhorn & Smith, 2008).
Under IDEA, parents of a child with a disability have significant legal rights in the approval or denial of proposed special education services. They may request an independent educational evaluation to be conducted at the school district’s expense and have the right to be active decision makers in the special education services that their child will receive. The team must review and reconsider placement at least once a year when a new IEP is written. Any possible harmful effects on the student or the quality of the services he or she will receive based on the proposed placement should be considered at this time as well. Whenever possible, students with disabilities should be educated in their home schools (§300.116) and should have equal opportunities to participate in all school activities, such as lunch and special area classes, support services, extracurricular activities and clubs, before-and-after school services, and transportation (§300.117). Students may not be denied education in a general education classroom solely on the need for a modified curriculum and a written explanation must be included in the IEP for any time spent for educational or additional activities that only include other children with disabilities [§300. 320(a)]. If parents and school personnel are unable to reach an agreement on the least restrictive environment, parents may file for Due Process.
Availability v. Necessity-based Approach
Decisions for student placement in the least restrictive environment should always be based on the individual needs of the student; however, too often this is not the case. Instead, LRE determinations are often based on the availability of school district resources. That is, the services already offered within a school district determine a student’s educational placement, rather than the individual needs of the student determining the services that are provided (Carson, 2016). The availability-based approach can be especially detrimental to a student when he or she would be successful in a less restrictive environment with supports; however, because the school district has not made the proper supports available, the student is placed in a more restrictive setting and therefore, is denied the maximum integration with nondisabled peers.
Alternatively, a necessity-based approach is centered on promoting integration first, through the premise that the child’s needs drive the services that are provided. This can be achieved by initially asking whether the needs of a student can be met in a less restrictive environment with appropriate supports and programming and also considering the practicality of creating these supports and programs if they do not already exist within a school system. Instead of limiting integration based on what is already available, schools should consider what services are “reasonable” to create and implement in order to meet a student’s individual needs.
Legal Foundations for Determining Free Appropriate Public Education
Education in the least restrictive environment is a component of a student with disabilities’ right to a free appropriate public education. Although there have been many cases concerning FAPE in the least restrictive environment, two cases have set the standards for determining these requirements. In 1982, the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, was the first case to set a standard for determining if FAPE had been provided. Amy Rowley, a student with minimal hearing, attended general education class in the Hendrick Hudson School District. Amy successfully completed her kindergarten year with the use of an FM hearing system. When Amy entered her first-grade year, an IEP was created stating that Amy should remain in general education classes with the use of an FM hearing system, tutoring and speech/language services. Amy’s parents agreed with the IEP but requested that Amy be provided a sign-language interpreter for all of her academic classes. The school denied this request, stating that Amy had an excellent ability to read lips, that she was performing better than the average student in her class, and that she was able to advance between grade levels without the support of an interpreter. With this, Amy’s parents requested a court hearing, claiming that the school district was denying FAPE because Amy was not learning as much or performing as well academically as she would without her disability. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the school district was in compliance with FAPE. This ruling determined that schools must provide minimal educational benefit for students with disabilities, but they are not obligated to provide maximum benefit.
With the Rowley case, the following two-step process was implemented to determine FAPE: (a) whether the student’s IEP was developed according to the procedural requirements of IDEA, and (b) whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. Moving forward, it has generally been pretty straightforward for most courts to determine if the procedural requirements have been followed in the first step of this test. The second, substantive step has been much more difficult to determine, questioning what constitutes as “educational benefit” for a particular student. Two conflicting standards for educational benefit emerged from the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Some Courts required that schools ensure that students with disabilities receive merely more than de minimis benefits, while other Courts required that schools ensure that students with disabilities receive “meaningful educational benefit”.
One of the most compelling special education cases regarding FAPE and LRE since Rowley is Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a higher standard of education for students with disabilities, stating that schools have the obligation to “enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
Endrew F. was a student who had been diagnosed with autism and ADHD, which affected his cognitive, language, social, and adaptive behavior skills. Endrew attended school within the Douglas County School District with an IEP for educational and related services from Pre-K through fourth grade. Endrew’s parents felt that he had made minimal academic and behavioral progress, in spite of these services and that his IEP remained basically the same from school year to school year. They declined the school’s proposed IEP for his fifth-grade school year, stating that it was very similar to his previous IEPs, and they placed him in a private school that specialized in educating students with autism. In this setting, Endrew made both academic and behavioral gains. His parents filed for a due process, requesting tuition reimbursement based on denial of FAPE by the school district. Both a hearing officer and the district court ruled that the school district had provided Endrew with FAPE because he did receive some educational benefit. Endrew’s parents then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, posing the question, “What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with free appropriate public education as guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?” (Howe, 2017).
With its conclusion on Endrew, the Supreme Court ruled that the judicial system should not impose their view of ideal educational methods on the state, rather that this should be left to the expertise of the members of the IEP team who are familiar with the student and the school environment. This reinforced the standard set in Rowley, that the IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits”.
Additionally, there are differences between these two cases, mainly regarding the level of benefit afforded to students with disabilities under IDEA. In the case of Endrew, the Supreme Court states that any benefit above no benefit at all should not be considered “some benefit”, as this is too low of a standard. Instead, it was found that the IEP must be “appropriately ambitious in light of his [the student’s] circumstances” and provide the student the “chance to meet challenging objectives” (Endrew, 2017).
Legal Foundations for Determining Least Restrictive Environment
Ensuring FAPE goes hand-in-hand with ensuring that a student with a disability has access to appropriate opportunities within the least restrictive environment. Many cases have questioned the access to learning in the LRE, which have had an effect the education of students with disabilities.
One landmark case, Roncker v. Walter School District in 1983 called into question the placement of Neill Roncker, a nine-year-old student with a moderate cognitive disability, in a segregated school for students with disabilities without interaction with non-disabled peers. Neill’s parents argued that Neill the LRE would be education in a regular education classroom with special education services, which would also provide him the opportunity to interact with peers without disabilities. Initially, the district court ruled that the mainstreaming requirement allowed schools to decide the appropriate placement for students with disabilities, and that Neill’s records supported that obvious academic benefits could not be obtained in the parent’s identified LRE. This was eventually overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that if the special education services in a segregated school could be transferred into the general education setting, then this would be the LRE. This decision, made by the Court of Appeals, opened many doors for LRE arguments in other cases.
For instance, the decisions made in the case of Roncker v. Walter School District, impacted the 1989 decision in Daniel R.R. v. the State Board of Education. Daniel, a six-year-old boy with Down’s Syndrome attended general education classes for half of the day, and special education classes for the remaining half. His educational team found that Daniel was not making progress in the regular class, even with modified curriculum. This led to an IEP team decision to move Daniel to the more restrictive, special education setting for the full day, with opportunities for inclusion with typically developing peers during lunchtime.
Daniel’s parents did not agree with this change of placement and requested a hearing. Eventually, the argument was raised to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which used the following two tests to determine the LRE: (a) whether supplementary aids and services could be adequately provided in a regular classroom and lead to satisfactory education, and (b) whether the student is still being educated with integration to the maximum extent possible if he or she is placed in a separate education classroom. It was determined that, in Daniel’s case, the school district had denied placement in the LRE under IDEA based on this two-part test.
Another important case in determining the LRE requirements under IDEA includes the 1994 case of Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H. Rachel Holland was an eleven-year-old girl with a severe cognitive disability who was in a segregated, special education classroom. Her parents requested, and were refused, placement in a regular education classroom with special education services. The school district argued that because of Rachel’s severe cognitive disability, she would not benefit from a general education setting and, therefore, she would need to continue in her current setting, and allowing her to participate in non-academic activities with her non-disabled peers.
Rachel’s parents appealed this to the Ninth Circuit Court, which ultimately decided on four factors that should be used to determine LRE. This included: (a) comparing the educational benefits that the student with disabilities would receive in the general education classroom with special education services versus the educational benefits that the student would receive in a special education class, (b) how significant are the social and communication benefits of interacting with students without disabilities (c) the cost of mainstreaming the student, and (d) the effects of the student’s presence in the general education classroom on his/her teacher and peers. Using this four-part test, the Ninth Circuit Court decided that the Sacramento City Unified School District failed to provide education in the LRE by denying her access to education in a regular education classroom.
In 1997, another instrumental case, Hartman v. Loudon County Board of Education was brought to the courts by the parents of Mark Hartman. Mark was an eleven-year-old student with autism. His parents felt that he was not being education with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible (Hartman v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 1997). While attending kindergarten and first grade in a public school in Illinois, Mark was placed in a general education classroom with an aide and related services. The family moved to Loudon County, Virginia prior to Mark’s second-grade year, where he was placed again in a general education classroom. In this setting, the school team reported that Mark displayed frequent classroom disruptions and meltdowns, thus occupying a great deal of teacher time, having adverse effects on the learning of his peers, and not making academic or behavioral progress in his current setting. The school proposed a placement in a class specifically for students with autism at a nearby school for Mark’s third-grade school year.
Mark’s parents refused to approve this IEP, claiming that the proposed placement failed to provide sufficient mainstreaming opportunities for Mark, which did not comply with the mainstreaming provision of the IDEA. After overturning decisions made in the district court, the 4th Circuit Court ultimately ruled in favor of the school, and asserting that mainstreaming under IDEA is not considered a mandate, but rather a flexible directive. New standards for LRE were set, stating that mainstreaming is not required or appropriate when: (a) a student with a disability would not receive benefit from such a placement, (b) marginal benefits would be significantly outweighed by benefits that could be obtained in a separate setting, and (c) the student is an ongoing disruptive force in the general education classroom (Conner & Ferri, 2006). The court also concluded that when the nature and severity of a student’s disability indicates almost certain failure in the general education class, and the more restrictive environment will allow the child to receive an appropriate education, then the alternative placement should be considered. It also concluded that the social benefits of mainstreaming are subordinate to the academic needs of a student with disabilities. (Thomas & Rapport, 1998).
A fifth case that has impacted the way that courts decide on LRE under IDEA is K. B. v. Nebo School District. K.B. was a preschool student with autism. After multiple IEP team meetings, the Nebo School District determined that the Park View Special Education Preschool, or PVSEP, was the appropriate placement for K.B. PVSEP provided education mostly to students with disabilities, but also included a small number of students without disabilities. K.B.’s parents argued that this placement violated her right to be educated in the LRE. The case was brought before the Sixth Circuit Court, which used the two-part test from Daniel R.R. to determine if K.B. could be sufficiently educated in a general education classroom with support services and aids. The court also considered previous rulings, such as the four-part test in Rachel H. to compare the educational benefits that K.B. would receive in the general education classroom with special education services to the educational benefits that K.B. would receive at PVSEP, as well as the impact of K.B.’s presence in the general education classroom on the teacher and her peers (Connor & Ferri, 2006).
Many cases have impacted the way that schools and courts determine the appropriate LRE for students with disabilities. Because of the variance in student needs and circumstances, as well as school environments and circumstances, great care needs to be taken to ensure a student’s right to education in the LRE under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IEP teams must work together in a systematic manner to gather information and expertise for determining what the individual student’s needs are and how they can best be met within reason for the school district.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the decision regarding the proper placement for a student with a disability is a complicated and multidimensional issue, there are a few core factors that must remain consistent under IDEA and the best interest of the student. All placement decisions should be made by relevant stakeholders with educational and student expertise. This decision must remain student-centered and revolve around formal data collection of all pertinent educational factors.
The ruling agreed upon in both Rowley and Endrew, stating that courts should not decide upon the ideal educational methods in a case, rather that this should be determined by experts who know the student and circumstances the best, further emphasizes the need for all relevant stakeholders to be present at IEP meetings. All essential stakeholders, including experts on special education (school personnel) and experts on the child (families, caregivers, and when appropriate, the student) must be active decision-makers during educational placement meetings.
It is essential that these stakeholders maintain the student as the core focus throughout this decision-making process. In order to maximize a student’s potential, placement should be based on a his or her individual strengths and needs. A strengths-based approach should be taken when determining a placement that will allow a student to continue to enhance his/her talents, while developing areas in need of support. Once student strengths and needs have been clearly identified, the IEP team should then consider how the school district can most reasonably support the student in order to promote his/her abilities, considering the least restrictive environment first.
Additionally, each decision should be based on, and supported by, data. It is easy to rely on anecdotal information when making decisions for a student; however, this can also be easily skewed or inaccurate. For example, stakeholders may remember the most recent experiences (i.e. if a student has a particularly “good week” leading up to the IEP meeting, then a teacher may state that he or she is doing very well in the current placement; however, if a student has a particularly “difficult week” prior to the IEP meeting, then a teacher may claim that the current placement is not sufficient.) Additionally, slight changes in performance (whether academic or behavioral) may be identified through the use of formal data collection, but otherwise may have been overlooked through observation or anecdotal information. On-going academic and/or behavioral progress monitoring should be completed on a regular, systematic basis, and this information should be used by the IEP team to inform their decisions.
Finally, grades should be taken into consideration when making placement decisions; however, they should not be the only deciding factor. It is important to keep in mind that grades are often a subjective measure, with teachers deciding which assignments and tasks will be kept as a grade and which grades best reflect a student’s performance. Additionally, academic performance is one component of a child’s education; however, school teams must also take into consideration other compounding factors such as social and emotional development, speech and language and physical development. Given the subjective nature of grading, as well as the many essential components of a comprehensive education, all relevant stakeholders and data collected should be considered when determining the proper placement of a student with a disability.