Least Restrictive Environment Archives

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.

Endrew F. v. Douglas City School District (2017)

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.

Learn More about the Misconceptions of LRE here:

Busting-Myths-About-LRE Download

Let’s start today by changing our language around the Least Restrictive Environment. Have you or your child with a disability faced systematic segregation because of the misuse of the LRE? Tell me your story in the comments below.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and cannot give legal advice. The following is my interpretation, as a lay advocate, of the 9th Circuit’s hearing of R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District on April 11th. My blog supports inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities, and my opinions are my own.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments today in a case centered on placement and the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for a elementary student with Down syndrome.

During his kindergarten year, the IEP team for an Arizona boy requested 20 additional minutes of pull-out time in a life skills class at another public elementary school five miles away from his neighborhood school. At the time, teachers reported that he had made some progress on 100% of his IEP goals. The parents refused, arguing that the decision amounted to a change in placement and invoked their “stay put” rights. He’s still currently at his neighborhood school, where his sister also attends. He spends the majority of his day in general education with a 1:1 aide.

Read Related Post: Endrew F. Supreme Court Case in Action

During the 15 minute hearing in front of the 9th Circuit of Appeals, the family’s lawyer, Amy Langerman, stated that there were three givens in the boy’s case:

The Supreme Court of the United States explained in Endrew F. that a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) for a student with an intellectual disability does NOT require them to keep up with their typical peers. Langerman argued that the boy in this case had made progress in light of his disability on 100% of his IEP goals in the general education classroom.
Congress, in creating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), strongly prefers that children with special needs be educated to the “maximum extent appropriate” with typically developing peers and removal should only occur “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.” Langerman argues that the 9th District the court must follow the “Rachel H. Standard” of LRE, which contemplates the (1) educational benefit of placement full-time in a regular classroom (2) the non-academic benefits of that placement (3) the effect the child would have on the teacher and other students (4) the cost of mainstreaming the child.
Lastly, Langerman argued the code of standard for LRE states a child should attend the same school they would attend if they were not disabled. In this case, Langerman argued the neighborhood school is the boy’s LRE.

As soon as Langerman finished her opening statement the female judge on the 9th Circuit surprised me by stating that this was the “first time a parent was arguing that there giving too many services to their child.” The judge seemed confused as to why the parent wouldn’t want her child to be given 20 more minutes of Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) in a life skills class at a different elementary school. Langerman responded to this to say that the parent agreed with teachers’ initial comments in the IEP meeting that he was making progress towards all of his IEP goals. She also stated that parents of children with disabilities everywhere would be celebrating in the streets if Congress would create a higher standard of education for students with disabilities, but that’s not the law. The law requires they be educated with their typical peers in LRE, and make meaningful progress towards their IEP goals. And the boy in this case was making progress, and not minimal progress.

The female judge also stated that there’s “evidence to support what the district calls for,” in that the law does NOT “require” a student be educated at their neighborhood school if that school doesn’t have the appropriate services to ensure the student makes meaningful progress. Langerman argued that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the due process case did not have all the needed information to make a correct decision in the case, because Endrew F. came after the ALJ’s ruling in the lower court.

Read Related Post: How School Boards are Using the Endrew F. Supreme Court Case Against Students with Down Syndrome

The lawyer for Gilbert Unified School District opened her arguments with two statements:

The school district wanted to provide more meaningful benefit to the student by offering 20 additional service minutes in math and writing. The boy currently has 105 minutes of Specially Designed Instruction (SDI).
The school district wanted to implement these minutes in a life skills class at a public school 5 miles away.

The district’s lawyer argued that the student “has no peers at the current school.” In a very sad and dramatic tone the lawyer declared the boy “an island in the general education classroom.” She went on to say “the IEP calls for small group instruction, but there’s no peers that he receive SDI alongside at his current school. We are are aiming for higher than some or good enough progress. The district doesn’t think he’s receiving any benefit in general education. His teachers say he would benefit from a life skills class.”

The judges asked if the district had taken into consideration transportation and the impact on the family. The lawyer said the district would pay for transportation to the new school, and had taken into account the family’s situation as much as is needed under the law.

The district’s argued that “some progress would be a denial of FAPE. None of his educators thought he was getting what he needed at the current school.” She went on to argue that the case is not about inclusion or segregation, and that the law does not require him to be educated at his home school if it’s not feasible to do so and make meaningful progress. She also stated that the IEP can be written the same way in a life skills class, so it’s not a change of placement but instead a change of location. “Placement and location are separate arguments,” the district’s lawyer argued.

So the question remains: Is removing a student from his neighborhood school considered a change of placement? Does the child have a right to receive the additional 20 minutes of SDI in his neighborhood school? Or does the district have the right to move him to a school that provides a life skills class to ensure he makes more “meaningful” benefit? No decision in the case was made today. I will report back as soon as a decision is made.

Tag: Least Restrictive Environment

Misconceptions about the Least Restrictive Environment