Least Restrictive Environment LRE Yell The Law and

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 1

Least Restrictive Environment 1. To the maximum extent appropriate children with disabilities are to be educated with children who are not disabled 2. Removal may only occur when education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 2

Continuum of Alternative Placements Regular Classroom Special Classes Special Schools Hospital/Institution/Homebound Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 3

Litigation & LRE • Roncker v. Walter, (6 th Cir. 1983) • Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Ed. (5 th Cir. 1989) • Greer v. Rome City Sch. Dist. (11 th Cir. 1991) • Oberti v. Board of Ed. (3 rd Cir. 1993) • Sacramento Sch. Dist. v. Rachel H. (9 th Cir. 1994) • Clyde K. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist. (9 th Cir. 1994) • Hartmann v. Loudoun County (4 th Cir. 1997) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 4

The Roncker Portability Test (6 th Circuit) In a case where the segregated facility is considered superior, the court should determine whether the services which make that placement superior could feasibly be provided in a nonsegregated setting Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 5

The Daniel R. R. Two-Part Test (3 rd, 5 th, 11 th) 1 st Part - Can education in the regular classroom, with supplementary aids & services be satisfactorily achieved? 2 nd Part - If it cannot, and the student is removed, is he/she mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate? Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 6

The Rachel H. Test (9 th Circuit) 1 st Factor - Educational benefits of the regular v. special classroom 2 nd Factor - Non-academic benefits of regular v. special classroom 3 rd Factor - Effect of the student on the education of others 4 th Factor - The cost of mainstreaming Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 7

The Hartmann Three-Part Test (4 th Circuit) Mainstreaming is not required when: üA student with a disability would not receive educational benefit üAny marginal benefit from mainstreaming is significantly outweighed by benefits in a separate setting üThe student is a disruptive force in the classroom Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 8

What Was Done Correctly? (Daniel R. R. , Clyde K. , Hartmann) ü Good faith attempts at inclusion ü Parents were involved ü Excellent documentation kept ü Integration used when appropriate Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 9

What Was Done Incorrectly? (Roncker, Greer, Oberti, & Rachel H. ) ü Failure to make efforts to accommodate the child in the mainstream ü Full continuum of alternatives not considered in placing student ü Insufficient documentation Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 10

Themes of Litigation ü Appropriateness ØLRE is not intended to replace appropriateness ü Individualization ØOne size does not fit all ü Options ØEntire continuum of placements must be available ü Integration/Inclusion Bias ØWe must start with the notion of integration Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 11

Inappropriate Considerations in LRE decisions ü Placement according to category or severity ü Placement where services are traditionally provided ü Citing disruption w/o evidence of behavior management attempts ü Cost, unless excessive Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 12

More Inappropriate Actions ü Removing a student from general class placement unless education there with the use of supplementary aids & services cannot be achieved satisfactorily ü Adopting a “full inclusion” policy instead of using the continuum of alternative placements ü Excluding parents from placement decisions ü Failing to follow the procedural requirements of the IDEA for all changes of placement Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 13

Determining Placement • IEP team should determine placement • The IEP must be developed before placement decision • The IDEA presumes that students will participate with nondisabled students in general education settings • If not, the IEP must explain why • Include positive behavioral supports & interventions in general education settings Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 14

Factors in Placement ü Placement in the neighborhood school – Unless the IEP requires otherwise, students with disabilities should be educated in their neighborhood school – Courts have consistently held that the IDEA creates a presumption in favor of the neighborhood school but does not guarantee it ü Interests of peers without disabilities “where a child is so disruptive. . . that the education of other students is significantly impaired. . . regular class placement would not be appropriate. . . ” 34 C. F. R. § 300. 552, comment Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 15

More Important Factors ü Is the program appropriate for the student? ü Is the entire continuum of placements available if needed? ü Is placement determined annually? ü Are individualized placement decisions made by the IEP team and other qualified personnel? ü Are students placed in their home school if appropriate? ü Are students with disabilities educated with nondisabled students? 16 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Determining LRE Determine FAPE Goals and Objectives What is appropriate? Determine Placement Can FAPE be achieved in general ed. with supplementary aids and services? If no, move through the continuum to determine LRE Provide Integrated Experiences Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved 17