Issues of Least Restrictive Environment

1
Issues of Least Restrictive Environment

• Residential Facility Monitoring
• TETN Presentation
• April 21, 2008

2
LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

• 34 Code of Federal Regulations
• 300.114 - 300.117

3
LRE Requirements 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)

• Each public agency must ensure that to the
  maximum extent appropriate, children in public or
  private institutions or other care facilities,
  are educated with children who are nondisabled
  and

4

• 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.

5
34 CFR 300.115 Continuum of Alternative
Placements

• (a) Each public agency must ensure that a
  continuum of alternative placements is available
  to meet the needs of children with disabilities
  for special education and related services.
• (b) The continuum must---
• (2) Make provision for supplementary services to
  be provided in conjunction with regular class
  placement.
• See also 19 TAC 89.63 (Instructional
  Arrangements and Settings)

6
34 CFR 300.116Placements

• (d) In selecting the LRE, consideration is given
  to any potential harmful effect on the child or
  on the quality of services that he or she needs.

7
34 CFR 300.117Nonacademic Settings

• LRE also applies to nonacademic and
  extracurricular services and activities such as
  recess, meals, athletics, counseling, groups, and
  clubs. Public agencies must ensure that each
  child with a disability participates with
  nondisabled children in the extracurricular
  services and activities to the maximum extent
  appropriate to the needs of that child. Public
  agencies must also ensure that a child with a
  disability has the supplementary aids and
  services determined by the IEP Team to be
  appropriate as necessary for the child to
  participate in nonacademic settings.

8

• Placement in the LRE requires
• an individual decisionprohibits categorical
  decision-making
• based on each childs IEP and
• based on the strong presumption of the IDEA that
  children with disabilities be educated in regular
  classes with appropriate aids and supports.

9
Comments to 2006 IDEA Regulations

• Placement decisions cannot be made solely on
  factors such as category of disability, severity
  of the disability, availability of special
  education and related services, configuration of
  the service delivery system, availability of
  space, or administrative convenience. (p. 46588)

10

• Placement refers to the points along the
  continuum of placement options and location is
  the physical surrounding such as the particular
  classroom. The school should have the
  flexibility to assign the child to a particular
  school of classroom provided that it is
  consistent with the placement determination.
  Schools are strongly encouraged to place the
  student in the school and classroom the child
  would attend if not disabled. (p. 46588)

11
Court Decision Concerning LRE

• Board of Education v. Rowley (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1982)
  The Act requires participating States to
  educate handicapped children with nonhandicapped
  children whenever possible.

12

• Cypress-Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F. (5th Cir.
  1997) The four factors that can serve as
  indicators of whether an IEP is reasonably
  calculated to provide meaningful educational
  benefit under the IDEA include
• whether the program is individualized on the
  basis of the student's assessment and
  performance
• whether the program is administered in the least
  restrictive environment ("LRE")
• whether the services are provided in a
  coordinated and collaborative manner by the key
  "stakeholders" and
• whether positive academic and non-academic
  benefits are demonstrated.

13

• Brillion v. Klein ISD (5th Cir. 2004) Under
  IDEA's policy of favoring mainstreaming of
  disabled students into the general student
  population, the Act requires participating states
  to establish policies and procedures ensuring
  that to the maximum extent appropriate,
  children with disabilities ... are educated with
  children who are not disabled, and special
  classes, separate schooling, or other removal of
  children with disabilities from the regular
  educational environment occurs only when the
  nature or severity of the disability of a child
  is such that education in regular classes with
  the use of supplementary aids and services cannot
  be achieved satisfactorily.

14
However

• Cody H. v. Bryan ISD (S.D. Texas 2005) When
  education in a regular classroom cannot meet the
  handicapped child's unique needs, the presumption
  in favor of mainstreaming is overcome and the
  school need not place the child in regular
  education.

15
Placement of Registered Sex Offenders Texas
Education Code 37.301-37.313

• TEC 37.303 generally requires that a school
  district shall remove a student who is required
  to register as a sex offender from the regular
  classroom and determine the appropriate placement
  of the student in the manner provided in this
  chapter.

16

• TEC 37.303 specifically relates the placement of
  students with disabilities who are registered sex
  offenders. It provides that placement decisions
  must be made in compliance with IDEA. It further
  requires that the review of a placement in an
  alternative educational placement (required by
  TEC 37.306) must be made only by an ARD
  committee, which may request that the board of
  trustees convene a committee described in TEC
  37.306(a) to assist with conducting the review.

17

• Letter to Michelson (OSEP 2006) OSEP addressed
  the issue of whether an Iowa law that authorizes
  school boards to make placement determinations
  for all students who are registered sex offenders
  conflicted with IDEA. OSEP informed the SEA that
  districts can prevent registered sex offenders
  from enrolling in schools, so long as they
  provide the special education and related
  services outlined in their IEPs in an alternative
  setting.

18

• LRE
• is a cornerstone in the provision of
• FAPE

19
What RF Monitoring is looking for

• Evidence that the LEA began with the premise
  that the RF student would, to the maximum extent
  appropriate, receive special education and
  related services in the general education
  environment
• Evidence that the IEP describes supplementary
  aids and services, based on peer-reviewed
  research to the extent practicable, to be
  provided to support the general education
  classroom services/ placement

20
What RF Monitoring is looking for continued

• Evidence that the IEP describes the program
  modifications or supports for school personnel
  that will be provided
• Evidence that the IEP describes how the student
  will be involved in and make progress in the
  general education curriculum
• Evidence that the IEP describes how the student
  will participate in extracurricular and other
  nonacademic activities

21

• Some students with disabilities who reside in
  RFs are impacted by court orders or medical
  conditions that effect the ARD committees
  discretion over the location of services
• HOWEVER
• it must not be assumed that, by virtue of living
  in an RF, a student will be served in a
  segregated setting or in a setting with only
  other students who reside in an RF.

22

• No one-size-fits-all decision-making regarding
  students who reside in an RF.

23
What RF Monitoring is looking forIf the student
is removed from the general education environment

• Evidence that the LEA made efforts to provide
  supplementary aids and services before removing
  the student from the general education classroom
• Evidence that the ARD committee determined
  whether the student would receive educational
  benefit from the general education classroom

24
What RF Monitoring is looking for If the student
is removed from the general education environment

• Evidence that the ARD committee determined what
  effect the students placement would have on the
  student or on the quality of services that he or
  she needs
• Evidence that the student was not removed from
  education in age-appropriate general education
  classrooms solely because of needed modifications
  in the general curriculum

25
What RF Monitoring is looking for If the student
is removed from the general education environment

• If the student does not participate in
  extracurricular and other nonacademic activities,
  evidence of individual-based justification
• If the student does not participate in activities
  with his non-disabled peers, evidence of
  individual-based justification
• If the student is not provided instruction in the
  general education curriculum, evidence of
  individual-based justification

26
What RF Monitoring is looking for If the student
is removed from the general education environment

• If the student does not receive instructional
  services on a regular, age-appropriate campus,
  evidence of individual-based justification for
  removal from a regular campus

27

• Individual-based Justification
• Specific, detailed information describing the
  circumstances that preclude the students
  placement in a regular classroom on a regular
  campus.

28
!!!Caution!!!

• If the reason students with disabilities are not
  placed in the general education classroom is
  because ARD committees believe that these
  students are required to perform on par with
  students without disabilities in order to be
  placed in general education classes---
• Noncompliance has been
• identified!

29
!!!Caution!!!

• If evidence indicates that students have been
  moved to more restrictive settings after entering
  the RF despite a lack of change in relevant
  educational goals
• Noncompliance has been identified!

30
!!!Caution!!!

• If there is evidence of patterns of similar
  justifications exist across RF students or
  subgroups of RF students to reflect
  decision-making that is not individualized
• Noncompliance has been identified!

31
Example of citations

• did not address all required LRE considerations.
• placement at the general education,
  age-appropriate campus was not considered.
• patterns of similar placement justification
  existed across RF students to reflect
  decision-making that is not individualized

32

• the LEA did not make efforts to provide
  supplementary aids and services in the general
  education classroom prior to the students
  removal to a self-contained setting and did not
  provide adequate justification
• students did not have access to the general
  education classroom due to placements at a
  separate campus that serves only students with
  disabilities.

33
MOUs between RFs and LEAs

• LEA must work with the RF to address and
  eliminate any situations or circumstances that
  would impact the LEAs ability to provide a FAPE
  in the least restrictive environment .
• LEA must guard against any agreements with the RF
  that imply that educational decision-making will
  not occur on a student-by-student basis.
• Any agreement between the LEA and RF must allow
  for appropriate, individualized considerations
  for students.

34

• Questions
• rfmon_at_tea.state.tx.us
• FAX[phone]

35
Future TETN RF Trainings

• RF Tracker Update for End of Year Reporting
• May 13 1045-1145
• Commensurate School Day
• June 18 830-930