PDED 505 Special Education Legislation & Litigation

1
PDED 505Special 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 childs
  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 childs 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 students 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 students
  program in the neighborhood school?
• Are there programs at the neighborhood school
  that can be adopted/modified to meet students
  needs?
• Given the students 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 schools 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 students ability to grasp regular education
  curriculum
• the nature severity of the disability
• the effect of students presence on the
  functioning of the general education classroom
• the students 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.
• We 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 Ericas sic needs appropriately.
• Unhappy with the school districts response,
  Erikas 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 districts three
  fully handicapped accessible schools.