Placing Students in the Least Restrictive Environment

The Roncker Test (Sixth and Eight Circuits)

Facts

Neil Rocker is a nine year old classified as having moderate intellectual disabilities.

School personnel believed that the most appropriate placement for Neil was in a special school for children with disabilities.

Parents objected, stating that their child would benefit from contact with his peers in a general education setting, and brought suit against the school district challenging the placement.

Rulling

The US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the school district.

They stated that the mainstreaming requirement allowed schools' broad discretion in the placement of students with disabilities.

Appealing

The US Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit adopted the Sixth Circuit court's Rocker portability standard in A.W. vs Northwest R-1 School District in 1987.

Portability Test

Can the educational services that make a segregated placement superior be feasibly provided in an unsegregated setting?

If so, the placement in the segregated setting in inappropriate.

The Daniel Test (Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits)

Facts

Daniel is a six year old child with Down Syndrome enrolled in the El Paso, Texas, Independent School District.

Daniel's parents requested to place him in a prekindergarten class for half of the school day and an early childhood special education class for the other half.

Daniel's teacher informed the school after the beginning of the year, placement committee that Daniel was not participating in class and was failing to master any of the skills taught, even with almost, constant attention and instruction from the teacher and aide.

The committee met and device that the prekindergarten class was inappropriate for Daniel.

Daniel got removed from the prekindergarten class, attended only the early childhood special class, and interacted with other children from the prekindergarten class at recess and lunch.

Hearing decision

The hearing officer agreed with the school's conclusion that Daniel could not participate in the prekindergarten class without almost-constant supervision from the teacher, that he was receiving the little educational benefit, and that he was disrupting the class because his needs absorbed most of the teacher's time.

The office also noted that the teacher would have to modify the curriculum totally meet Daniel's needs.

The parents filed an action in the district court and then the circuit court.

Circuit Court

Daniel court declined to follow the Sixth Circuit analysis in Roncker, stating that the Rocker test necessitated "too intrusive an inquiry into educational policy choices that Congress deliberately left to state and local school districts".

The court believed that the statutory language of the LRE mandate provided a more appropriate test for determining a school's compliance with the mainstreaming requirement that did the Roncker inquiry.

Daniel Two-Part Test

Can education in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services be achieved satisfactory?

If a student is placed in a more restrictive setting, is the student integrated to the maximum extent appropriate?

The Rachel H. Test (Ninth Circuit)

Facts

Rachel Holland is a 11 year old with moderate intellectual disabilities.

From 1985 to 1989, she attended a number of special education programs in the Sacramento School District.

During the fall of 1989, her parents requested that she be placed in a general education classroom during the entire school day.

School District rejected this request since they contended that Rachel's disability was too severe for her to benefit from the placement, instead they proposed that she be placed in special education for academic subjects, attending general education class only for nonacademic for nonacademic activities:

Art, music, lunch, and recess

Parents removed her from the school and placed her in a private school, and requested a due process hearing.

Hearing decision

The hearing officer held for the parents, stating that the school district had failed to make an adequate effort to educate Rachel in a general education classroom.

Appealing

Ninth Circuit appeal was heard on August 12, 1993, and they delivered their opinion on January 24, 1994.

The circuit final decision was an affirmation of the district court.

The school district filed a petition to have the Supreme Court review the case but it was denied.

The Rachel H. Four-Factor Test

The educational benefits of the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services as compared with the educational benefits of the special classroom.

The nonacademic benefits of interaction with students without disabilities.

The effect of the student's presence on the teacher and on other students in the classroom.

The cost of mainstreaming.

The DeVries Test (Fourth Circuit)

Facts

Micheal DeVries was a 17 year old high schooler with autism who attended Fairfax Public School system.

Micheal IEP team determined that the most appropriate program for Micheal would be at a county vocational center at West Potomac High School, which was miles away from his home school, Annandale High School.

His parents disagree and filed a due process hearing.

Hearing decision

The district held that the vocational center was the appropriate and least restrictive environment for Michael.

The district court's ruling was appealed and on August 16, 1989, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit handed down its ruling affirming the decision of the district court.

The DeVries/Hartmann Three-Factor Test

Mainstreaming is not required when:

A student with a disability would not receive educational benefit from mainstreaming in a general education class.

I think that this is very important because the main goal is to make sure that we have placed the students with disabilities in a general education classroom where they can actually learn and not just socialize with other students that are nondisabled. The importance of this is because the students should also receive educational benefits if the general education classroom is not going to support their IEP goals. That's like the case that I worked with my case brief and I had to state why a student did not need to be placed in a mainstreamed classroom the whole day, instead, he needed a special ed classroom half of the day to focus on his goals.

Any marginal benefit from mainstreaming would be significantly outweighed by benefits that could feasibly be obtained only in a separate instructional setting.

The student is disruptive force in the general education classroom.

Summary of Judicial Standards of Review

Individualization

Benefits to the Student

The school may compare the educational benefits of the general education classroom with those received in the special education classroom.

If the school determines that the self-contained setting will provide significantly greater benefits and that in the general education classroom, the student will fall behind peers in the self-contained class, the general education environment may not be appropriate.

Effect on Peers

School personnel may consider the effect the presence of a student with disabilities in a general education classroom would have on the education of the other students in that classroom.

A student who disrupts the education of others due to behavior problems or because of needing constant teacher attention may not be appropriately placed in a general education classroom.

I wonder if in these cases the students that will need an aide can be placed in a general education classroom without any problem even if they distract their peers. This is because we want to avoid a restrictive environment, but also we would like to ensure that the other student's education is not affected. Also, maybe having both special education and general education working together might be better.

Appropriateness

IDEA requires:

that schools provide FAPE to all students with disabilities.

to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities should educated with students without disabilities.

In determining placement, the IEP team balances FAPE with the preference for educating students with disabilities with their peers in the general education classroom.

Integration

IDEA requires the maximum amount of integration that is appropriate given a student's needs.

An appropriate interpretation of the LRE cases is that students with disabilities belong in integrated settings and that schools must make good-faith efforts to make this possible.

The Use of Supplementary Aids and Services

School districts must make good-faith to maintain students in a general education class placement, and the provision of various supplementary aids and services is a means by which schools can maintain students with disabilities in these settings.

Supplementary Aid and Services may include:

assistive technology services or devices

prereferral interventions

consultation

behavior management plans

paraprofessionals

itinerant teachers

resource rooms

The LRE Mandate

Addresses the presumptive right of all student with disabilities to be educated with students without disabilities.

IDEA favors integration, but recognizes that for some students more restrictive or segregated settings may be appropriate.

School must take good-faith efforts to place and maintain students in less restrictive settings.

It requires that before students with disabilities are placed in more restrictive settings, efforts must be first made to maintain a student in less restrictive settings with the use of supplementary aids and services.

These supplementary aids and services should include assistive technology devices or services, behavioral interventions, teaching adaptations, personnel training, teacher aide, or resource rooms.

IDEA requires that state education agencies ensure that the LRE requirement extends to students in public schools, private schools, and other care facilities.

States are required to ensure that teachers and administrators in all public schools are fully informed about the requirements of LRE provision and are provided with the technical assistance and training necessary to assist them in this effort.

Continuum of Alternative Placements

Each school district should ensure that of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services

The continuum required:

Instruction in regular classroom, special class, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals, and institutions.

Resource room, or itinerant instruction.

Determine Student's Placement

The MDT team is responsible for the student's placement along the continuum that the is the least restrictive setting in which a student will receive an appropriate education.

The team must make the placement decision at least annually.

I wonder if the placement decision can be discussed throughout the year depending on the student's disability, and how the student's progress goes through the year. For example, if a student with a specific learning disability needs to be placed in a special education classroom for half of the day at the beginning of the school year and then maybe during the middle of the year the IEP team can see that the student is progressing, they might schedule a meeting and then consider a change of placement.

What are three major errors to avoid in placement?

Placement decisions should not be based solely on factors that are unrelated to a student's actual needs.

Student's disability must not be predetermined, before an IEP meeting.

An IEP team should not determine a student's placement prior to developing his or her IEP.

Placement in the Neighbored School

The goal of educating a student with disabilities in the neighborhood school must be balanced with the requirement that a student's education be appropriate and individualized.

If the neighborhood school cannot provide a free appropriate public education, the school is not required to place a student to place a student with disabilities in that school.

Schools retain the right to determine how to use their resources in the most efficient manner.

If district administrators choose to concentrate resources at particular schools for particular needs and disabilities, under IDEA.

NonAcademic Programming

Regulations implementing the IDEA extend the LRE requirements to areas such as:

extracurricular services, meals, recess period, counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, recreational activities, and special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the IDEA.

They include activities such as:

counseling services, physical recreational athletics, transportation, health services, recreational services, special interest groups, school-sponsored clubs and employment by a school.

The Interests of Peer Without Disabilities

The IDEA indicates that a legitimate consideration in determining the LRE for a student with disabilities is the needs of the student's needs.

Section 504 federal regulations:

where a student with disabilities is so disruptive in a regular classroom that the education of other students is significantly impaired, the needs of the student with disabilities cannot be met in that environment.

Therefore regular placement would not be appropriate to his or her needs.

IDEA regulations:

If child with a disability has behavioral problems that are so disruptive in a regular classroom that the education of other children is significantly impaired, the needs of the child with a disability generally cannot be met in that environment.

However, before making such a determination, LEAs must ensure that consideration has been given to the full range of supplementary aids and services that could be provided to the child in the regular educational environment to accommodate the unique needs of the child with a disability.

If the student has a health condition that poses an actual risk of contagion to other students, the student may be placed in a setting in which the risk is minimized.

Such a placement would not violate the LRE mandate of either the IDEA or Section 504.

Principle 1: The primary objective when developing a student's special education program is appropriateness

Principle 2: Place students in settings in which they have the most contact with their non disabled peers

Principle 3: Use the continuum of placements to determine the least restrictive appropriate placement

IEP team steps:

Step 1: The IEP determines that a student is eligible for services.

Step 2: The team defines what constitutes appropriate educational services for the student.

Step 3: The team asks whether these appropriate educational services can be delivered in the general education classroom in its current form.

If the answer is yes, then the general education setting becomes the student's primary placement.

If no, go to step 4.

Step 4: The team asks whether these appropriate educational services can be delivered in the general education classroom if the setting is modified through the addition of supplementary aids and services.

If yes, then the general education setting with supplementary aids and services becomes the student's primary placement.

If no, go to step 5.

Step 5: If the team determines that the general setting, even with supplementary aids aids and services, is not appropriate, the team should determine placement by moving along the continuum of alternative placements one step at a time, from the least restrictive setting to more restrictive ones. Each step, ask whether the services called for in the IEP can be delivered in that setting.

If yes, then the setting becomes the student's primary placement.

If no, go to step 6.

Step 6: The team asks whether the services called for in the IEP can be delivered in the slightly more restrictive settings if they are modified through the use of supplementary aids and services.

If yes, that is the primary placement.

If not, repeat step 5 for a placement on the continuum that is slightly more restrictive, and then, if necessary, go to step 6 for that setting.

Step 7: In the context of the primary placement chosen, ask if there are additional opportunities for integration for some portion of the student's school day.

If yes, design a split placement by including the student in the integrated setting for part of the school day and in the more restrictive setting for part of the school day.