Here’s a refrain we hear all too often in special education:
“Johnny’s LRE is the Autism Program. This program is 30 minutes away from his home school and is separate from the general education classroom, but Johnny has Autism so this really is the best program in the least restrictive environment for him.”
This statement can be heard in IEP meetings, found in blog posts, even written in scholarly articles. But the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and case law dispels the myth that the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is individualized or unique for each child. It is not. I repeat, the LRE is not individualized. Yes, the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is individualized. Yes, the decision of a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) is individualized, but the LRE is a place…and it’s only one place: A REGULAR CLASSROOM.
The misuse of the LRE has led to the systematic segregation of kids with disabilities. It has led to kids who never get a chance to even try the LRE with appropriate supports as the law intended them to. They essentially lose their civil right to the Least Restrictive Environment. It has caused schools to fail to follow more than 40 years of research on how to best educated children with disabilities.
Read Related Post: 7 New Research Studies to Win the Fight for Inclusion
Now some of you may be thinking “Wow, that word segregation seems kinda harsh,” but I would implore you to look at this from a civil rights lens. When we speak of students of color being separated from white students we call it what it is: segregation. Why wouldn’t we do the same for students with disabilities, especially when Congress makes clear that their intent of IDEA is to ensure students with disabilities are educated alongside non-disabled students and to have access to the general education curriculum in a regular classroom with supports. Here’s the actual language from IDEA:
§300.114 LRE Requirements.
Each public agency must ensure that 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 nondisabled; and 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.
The fact is IDEA demands that any move to a more restrictive placement be an issue of FAPE. A discussion of whether or not the child can satisfactorily receive a FAPE in a regular classroom must be discussed and tried first before moving to a more restrictive environment. The problem is: this too often doesn’t happen. Instead, students with certain disabilities are automatically labeled as too disabled to even try the regular classroom. Or the district puts them in the regular classroom without maximizing appropriate supports, and moves them as soon as trouble arises.
Read Related Post: Endrew F. In Action
Case law reiterates Congress’ strong preference to have students with disabilities learning alongside their non-disabled peers in a regular classroom with supports.
- Roncker Portability Test, 1983
–Can services provided in segregated setting be transported to the general education classroom?
–If so, then they must be provided in the regular classroom first. Special education is not a place. Services must be portable, and preferably brought into the regular classroom.
- Daniel Two-Part Test, 1989
–Can meaningful education be provided in general education classroom with supplementary services and aids?
–If not the the student still must be integrated in regular education to the maximum extent possible.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently made it clear that children with disability must make “meaningful progress” on general education curriculum in light of their disability. This means school districts must ensure IEPs are “appropriately ambitious,” and follow IDEA’s statutory intent to serve those students in the LRE.
It is a red herring to say that a more restrictive placement is somehow a student’s Least Restrictive Environment. It distracts from the fact that placement is an issue of FAPE. If the school district determines a child must be placed in a more restrictive setting they must give a cogent, responsive reason why they have determined the child’s disability is so severe that the child cannot receive a Free and Appropriate Education in the regular classroom even with the use of supplementary aids and services.
We need to start saying what we mean and meaning what we say. Or in this case, we need to start saying what Congress meant by the LRE. By using the LRE in the wrong context we’ve creating a system where too many children never have a chance to be education in the place that Congress wants the child to start and where all the research proves is most beneficial: the regular classroom.
