1. PDED 505 Special Education Legislation & Litigation Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

2. LRE What is the difference between mainstreaming, inclusion, and LRE? mainstreaming is the process of integrating children with disabilities into regular schools & classes inclusion is the philosophy/policy of integrating students with disabilities into regular education schools/classes LRE is a legal term under federal & state special education laws & regulations; it refers to the educational setting that most closely resembles a regular school program and also meets the child’s special education needs; LRE is a relative concept & must be individually determined for each student with disabilities; LRE is not a place (e.g., a specific classroom)

3. The Legal Basis for LRE Federal Law states… § 300.114 (2)(i)(ii) “Each public agency must insure that--to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in private or public institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education 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.”

4. Considerations in Making LRE Placements the proximity of the school to the child’s home What school would the child have attended if s/he was not disabled? What are potential harmful effects on child? What are potential harmful effects on the quality of service? Would there be a disruption in the regular education setting which would impair the education of other students?

5. State Law has the following continuum of services: full-time placement in general education classrooms with special education support services split-time placement in general education & special education classrooms full-time placement in a special education program within a general education facility full-time placement in a separate facility (if students are placed in a separate facility, they must be provided with opportunities to interact with students without disabilities in non-academic and extra curricular activities to the maximum extent possible; e.g., community based programs, etc.)

6. Which LRE option is appropriate? The following refer to issues that the courts consider when making judgments regarding LRE…

7. Which LRE option is appropriate? How are goals/objectives addressed? Prioritization of goals/objectives Why are certain goals/objectives being emphasized & others not?

8. Which LRE option is appropriate? How are goals/objectives addressed? If the student will be integrated with students without disabilities, what progress can be achieved by the student in such a setting? Would participation in general education help/hinder this progress? Would participation in special education help/hinder this progress?

9. Which LRE option is appropriate? How are goals/objectives addressed? Which goals could student achieve satisfactorily in general education? In special education? Would participation in general/special education help/hinder progress toward goals? Of the goals pursued in the special education classroom, could these be pursued in the general education class?

10. Which LRE option is appropriate? How are goals/objectives addressed? If the curriculum is to be adapted, is it out of the student’s reach? Is it so modified that it is unrelated to the general education curriculum? Is it really just special education in a regular education environment?

11. Which LRE option is appropriate? Past history in general & special education Is there a documentation of progress? Is there any progress? Are there any problems with the progress on goals/objectives? Were there any adverse effects encountered by the student or other students?

12. Which LRE option is appropriate? Benefits/Detriment of placement The progress on goals with further integration is compared to the progress on goals with remaining in special education Would further integration in special education offer more benefits/detriments to meeting goals/objectives?

13. Which LRE option is appropriate? Neighborhood/Home School Placement Can the necessary and appropriate program/services be provided in a neighborhood school? Why did the district select the particular school as the site, rather than the neighborhood school? Is the particular school chosen a centralized program? Would it be feasible to duplicate the student’s program in the neighborhood school? Are there programs at the neighborhood school that can be adopted/modified to meet student’s needs? Given the student’s abilities, will the school make a difference?

14. Which LRE option is appropriate? Neighborhood/Home School Placement Can the student establish relationships with other students? Does the school’s location make a difference for transitioning planning/community based instruction? To what extent has the student had interactions with other children at home, in the neighborhood? Would transportation have any impact on interactions and progress with goals/objectives? What would be the benefits/adverse effects of neighborhood school vs. another school?

15. What is the relationship between LRE & IDEA? IDEA requires states to establish procedures ensuring LRE; guidelines are not available because placement decisions should be individualized LRE is secondary to an appropriate education; the most important mission of IDEA is to provide a Free, Appropriate, Public Education

16. What is the relationship between LRE & IDEA? Do the recommended services warrant removal from a general education environment, or can they be provided in the LRE? Students should not be mainstreamed for the sake of mainstreaming, but only when there is benefit from it LRE mandate does not require districts to place students in neighborhood schools in all situations; many districts centralize special education services because of money--this is acceptable

17. Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989) a "mainstreaming test" was designed to determine a district's compliance with mainstreaming Can an education in the regular classroom with use of supplemental aids and services be achieved satisfactorily? If not, & special education is provided/the child is removed from regular education, has the school mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate?

18. Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989) Answers to these questions are derived from: the student’s ability to grasp regular education curriculum the nature & severity of the disability the effect of student’s presence on the functioning of the general education classroom the student’s overall experience in the mainstream the amount of exposure the special education student would have on nondisabled students

19. Decisions approving segregated settings Briggs v. Board of Education of Connecticut (1989) This case involved a student with a hearing impairment. The school wanted the student to attend a public preschool program for HI students taught by a teacher for the HI. The parents wanted the student to attend a private preschool attended by students without disabilities, and not taught by a teacher for the HI. The court ruled that mainstreaming is not appropriate when the nature or severity of a student's disability was such that education in a regular classroom could not be achieved satisfactorily.

20. Decisions approving segregated settings DeVries v. Fairfax County School Board (1989) This case involved a student with autism, decreased cognitive functioning, and immature behavior. The student had difficulty with interpersonal communication and relationships and required a predictable environment. The court indicated that the student could not be educated satisfactorily in the general education setting even with supplementary aids and services.

21. Decisions approving segregated settings Gillette v. Fairland Board of Education (1991) An LD child was placed in a special education classroom for students with LD, although the parents wanted placement in a general education classroom. The court ruled that the student could not be fully mainstreamed without detriment to his own education and his classmates

22. Decisions ordering inclusive placements Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (1993) The court determined that a segregated special education classroom was not the LRE for a student with Down's Syndrome. The district was found to have an obligation to consider placement in general education with supplementary aids and services before exploring other alternatives. The court stated that to meet IDEA's goals, the district must maximize mainstreaming opportunities.

23. Decisions ordering inclusive placements Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Rachel H. (1994) The court ruling in this case stated, "IDEAs presumption in favor of mainstreaming requires placement in the general education class if the student can receive a satisfactory education there, even if it is not in the best academic setting for the student".

24. 4 factors to consider when determining the LRE: What are the educational benefits of placement in that setting? What are the nonacademic benefits of such placement? What is the effect of the student on the teacher & classmates? What are the costs of mainstreaming?

25. Schuldt v. Mankato Independent School District (1991) Nine-year old Erika Schuldt was born with spina bifida, which paralyzed her from the waist down. Erika uses a lightweight wheelchair and her condition requires regular physical therapy, catheterization, and bowel care. The Schuldts live about five blocks from the Roosevelt Elementary School, and when the time came for Erika to go to kindergarten, her parents notified the school district that they wanted Erika to attend Roosevelt. …On June 16, 1988, Lyle McFarling, Director of Special Education, wrote to the Schuldts informing them that the school district would not modify Roosevelt to make it accessible to Erika. The letter stated: District 77 is not required to make each of its elementary school buildings accessible for handicapped students if it has an accessible site which offers the same programs that are available at the inaccessible building site. …[W]e are recommending that Erica [sic] attend one of the three totally accessible elementary buildings that we have available in District 77. Washington, Kennedy, and Hoover Elementary Schools are all totally accessible buildings and would met Erica’s [sic] needs appropriately. Unhappy with the school district’s response, Erika’s parents requested and attended a conference to further discuss where Erika would attend elementary school. After this meeting McFarling sent the Schuldts a memorandum explaining that although Roosevelt could be modified to give Erika physical access to the building, the district refused to place her at Roosevelt because even after modification, placement at Roosevelt would still be inferior to placement at one of the school district’s three fully handicapped accessible schools.