6 IDEA Principle – Least Restrictive Environment

The IDEA includes two fundamental requirements: that the individual will receive 1) a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in 2) the least restrictive environment (LRE). The IDEA statute and implementing regulations emphasize the requirement to educate individuals with disabilities in regular (i.e., general education) classes with their nondisabled peers.

federal law

IDEA Regulations §300.114 LRE Requirements

(a) General.

(1) Except as provided in §300.324(d)(2) (regarding children with disabilities in adult prisons), the State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that public agencies in the State meet the LRE requirements of this section and §§300.115 through 300.120.

(2) 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 non-disabled; 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.

(b) Additional requirement—State funding mechanism—

(1) General.

(i) A State funding mechanism must not result in placements that violate the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section; and

(ii) A State must not use a funding mechanism by which the State distributes funds on the basis of the type of setting in which a child is served that will result in the failure to provide a child with a disability FAPE according to the unique needs of the child, as described in the child’s IEP.

(2) Assurance. If the State does not have policies and procedures to ensure compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the State must provide the Secretary an assurance that the State will revise the funding mechanism as soon as feasible to ensure that the mechanism does not result in placements that violate that paragraph.

lITIGATION

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) – In this 1954 landmark case, the justices unamiously agreed that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that “separate is not equal”. This historical case can be utilized to discuss segregation of students with disabilities in schools.

Mattie T. v. Holladay (1979) – This class action lawsuit argued that assessment procedures for special education eligibility determination were discriminatory and resulted in inappropriate placements within special education. Twenty six families of students with disabilities were the plaintiffs in this case against the Superintendent of the Mississippi Board of Education (Charles E. Holladay). The court ruled that schools need to provide non-discriminatory assessments in a timely manner.

Beth B. v. Lake Bluff School District (2002) – The plaintiffs in this case alleged that Lake Bluff School District failed to provide FAPE to their daughter. Additionally, Beth’s parents requested reimbursement for private therapy sessions and they also alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Beth, a student with Rett Syndrome, had been educated in the general education setting with the support of a one-on-one /Instructional Assistant until second grade. However, Beth was not making academic progress in this setting. Therefore, the Lake Bluff School District recommended that she be placed in an educational life skills (ELS) setting. This was a classroom outside the general education setting allowing for small group instruction with other students with disabilities. Beth’s parents disagreed with the proposed placement and appealed to a state hearing officer. Additionally, Beth’s parents invoked the “stay put” provision of IDEA, therefore she remained in the general education setting during the due process hearing and court proceedings. Beth remained in the general education setting until sixth grade. The due process hearing officer upheld the district’s decision to move Beth to the ELS setting. Beth and her parents appealed to the district court, which affirmed the hearing officers’ decision. Beth and her parents then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit granted judgment in favor of the defendants (Lake Bluff) on all counts. This Question and Answer developed by Carly Allen reviews the following questions associated with the case:

• • Who is Beth and what is the extent of her disability?
  • What placement does the school recommend for Beth?
  • How does FAPE come into play in this case?
    What are the main issues with LRE in this case?
  • What did the court decide?

Bonadonna v. Cooperman (1985) – Alisa, a child with a profound hearing impairment, attended a preschool hearing impaired program for 13 months before moving to the Franklin Lakes district (New Jersey). Alisa made progress in this placement; therefore the new district recommended that Alisa remain in a hearing impaired program. However, her parents rejected this recommendation. In response, the school district changed their recommendation to include Alisa returning to her homeschool daily for an hour of instruction in her general education kindergarten setting in addition to continuing in the hearing impaired program. Alisa’s parents also rejected this recommendation. The hearing process was complicated. The first hearing officer ruled that the mainstreamed placement was not working and sided with the LEA. Before the District Court could hear the appeal of this ruling, the parents initiated a second hearing, with a slightly different set of issues. During the course of this second hearing, Alisa’s parents and the LEA seemed to have come to an agreement about a placement involving some mainstreamed classes and some resource room services in a different school. However, the second hearing officer promptly disallowed this compromise on the basis that it would involve “excessive travel time” and ordered the LEA to provide the resource room service in the same school as the mainstreamed classes. Franklin Lakes School District appealed this decision to the District Court, seeking a return to its original recommendation of a special class placement. The District Court ruled that the mixed-placement compromise that was previously implemented should stand. Furthermore, in the ruling the judge commented on the partial mainstreaming placement stating that much can be learned from interactions with peers in the general education setting. He also indicated that Alisa’s classmates had learned a great deal from their interactions with her.

Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District (1998) – This case addressed the following questions: (1) Has the State [Florida] complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA? (2) Is the Individualized Education Program developed by the LEA reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? In this case, the parents rejected the placement recommended by the school district for their daughter and enrolled her in a residential, private school. BW is a student with a learning disability and her school IEP recommended placement in a day program for students with Developmental Delays. Following two unsuccessful administrative hearings, the parents initiated another hearing to seek reimbursement for the cost of the private school.

Roncker v. Walter, 700 F2d. 1058 (6th Circuit Court, 1993)  – This case addressed the issue of “bringing educational services to the individual” versus “bringing the individual to the services.” The case was resolved in favor of integrated versus segregated placement and established a principle of portability; that is, “if a desirable service currently provided in a segregated setting can feasibly be delivered in an integrated setting, it would be inappropriate under PL 94-142 to provide the service in a segregated environment.”

Oberti vs. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (3rd Circuit Court, 1993) – This case upheld the right of Rafael Oberti, a boy with Down syndrome, to receive his education in his neighborhood regular school with adequate and necessary supports, placing the burden of proof for compliance with IDEA’s mainstreaming requirements on the school district and the state rather than on the family. The federal judge who decided the case endorsed full inclusion, writing, “Inclusion is a right, not a special privilege for a select few”.

Sacramento City Unified School District vs. Holland (9th Circuit Court, 1994) – This case upheld the district court decision in which Judge David S. Levi indicated that when school districts place individuals with disabilities, the presumption and starting point is the mainstream. The parents challenged the district’s decision to place their daughter half-time in a special education classroom and half-time in a regular education classroom; they wanted their daughter in the regular classroom full-time. Rachel Holland, an 11 year old with mental retardation [intellectual disability], was tested with an I.Q. of 44. The District contended Rachel was too “severely disabled” to benefit from full-time placement in a regular class. The court found in favor of including the individual. The 9th Circuit Court established a four-part balancing test to determine whether a school district is complying with IDEA:

• the educational benefits of placing the individual in a full-time regular education program;
• the non-academic benefits of such a placement (the court noted social and communications skills as well as her self-confidence from placement in a regular class);
• the effect the individual would have on the teacher and other individuals in the regular classroom; and,
• and the costs of supplementary aids and services associated with this placement.

Greer vs. Rome City School District (11th Circuit Court, 1992) – In this case, the Court stated “Before the school district may conclude that a handicapped individual should be educated outside of the regular classroom it must consider whether supplemental aids and services would permit satisfactory education in the regular classroom.” Parents said the school determined the individual’s “severe impairment” justified placement in a self-contained special education classroom. The district argued that the costs of providing services in the classroom would be too high. The court sided with the parents and said the school had made no effort to modify the kindergarten curriculum to accommodate the individual in the regular classroom. The court said that the district cannot refuse to serve an individual because of added cost. The Court also said school officials must share placement considerations with the individual’s parents at the IEP meeting before a placement is determined.

Daniel R.R. v State Board of Education , 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Circuit Court 1989) – This case found that a regular education placement is appropriate if an individual with a disability can receive a satisfactory education, even if it is not the best academic setting for the individual. Non-academic benefits must also be considered. The Court stated that “academic achievement is not the only purpose of mainstreaming. Integrating a handicapped individual into a nonhandicapped environment may be beneficial in and of itself…even if the individual cannot flourish academically.” The Circuit Court developed a two-pronged test to determine if the district’s actions were in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):

1. Can education in the regular classroom with the use of supplemental aids and services be achieved satisfactorily?
2. If it cannot, has the school mainstreamed the individual to the maximum extent appropriate?

RESOURCES

• This narrated slide deck outlines LRE including the continuum of alternative placements, calculating time spent in special/general education, general provisions, and policy. Use this Least Restrictive Environment PowerPoint as a resource to share information.
• This introductory video, part of a series, offers an overview of IDEA, FAPE, and IEPs. (Time: 4:20) Turn on closed captions as needed.
• Virginia Department of Education provides a Calculation Tool for Least Restrictive Environment to percent of regular instructional time and percent of special education time.
• This website from the Center for Parent Information and Resources provides the following in Spanish and English: LRE, Key terms, regular education environment, “satisfactorily educated”, supplemental aids and services, other settings to consider, who decides placement, how does the group decide placement, and notifying parents
• Questions and Answers on Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Requirements of the IDEA – Wrightslaw
• Least Restrictive Environment, Mainstreaming and Inclusion – Wrightslaw
• This Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Information Brief from the IRIS Center provides an introduction to LRE, explains continuum of placements, offers examples, steps for making placement decisions, and examples of placement decisions.
• Fact Sheet for Virginia’s Parents on LRE from Virginia’s Parent Educational Advocacy Training Center (PEATC)
• USDHHS & USDOE Joint Policy Statement on Inclusion (2023) – This policy statement, released jointly by the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, states that all young children with disabilities should have access to high-quality inclusive early childhood programs that provide individualized and appropriate support so they can fully participate alongside their peers without disabilities, meet high expectations, and achieve their full potential.
• NAEYC & DEC Joint Position Statement on Early Childhood Inclusion (2009)
• This Infographic for families on inclusion  outlines what inclusion means in multiple settings with examples.
• This Infographic for policymakers on inclusion outlines what inclusion means in a variety of settings. It provides the benefits and examples of inclusionary practices.

ACTIVITIES

• Research the connection between Brown vs. Board of Education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
• Research the following questions:
  • Were schools in your state or school district legally segregated? If so, what were the differences between experiences of white and non-white students?
  • How quickly after Brown v. Board of Education  were schools in Virginia desegregated?
  • Were there areas of Virginia (or your state) that refused to desegregate?