An Inclusive Education Debate-
Join me as I try to squish a complex issue into a five minute read!
Let's talk about the Least Restrictive Environment, or LRE. Being educated in the least restrictive environment is a fundamental right afforded to all disabled students through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, Section 300.114. Here's what the law says:
Sec. 300.114 LRE Requirements
(a)(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 nondisabled; 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.
Read that again. And then read it one more time. It's saying learners with disabilities are to be educated WITH their nondisabled peers and pulling kids away from their peers should happen ONLY AFTER the use of supplementary aids and services have been tried and have proven ineffective in supporting the learner in the general education classroom.
Well, surely I don't mean that student?! You know, the one who hits, or the one who doesn't talk, or the one with a significant intellectual disability, or the one who.... The law covers ALL students with disabilities and makes no exceptions. Again, LRE is a fundamental right afforded to ALL students with disabilities through IDEA. All means all. And I would argue THE Least Restrictive Environment was, is, and always will be the general education classroom. I am not saying that the general education classroom is an appropriate placement for all learners all the time. What I AM saying is that all learners have the right to start there and have the right to return there.
Isn't there some room for interpretation? I mean, what does "maximum extent appropriate" and "education... achieved satisfactorily" really even mean?
"Maximum extent appropriate" and "education... achieved satisfactorily" are pointing to FAPE, or a Free Appropriate Public Education. School districts must provide a FAPE to students with disabilities. So wait... what is more important, FAPE or LRE??? Here are some Supreme Court cases to help us figure that out.
First, is the 1982 Rowley v. Board of Education case which said that students with disabilities must receive only some educational benefit from their education program. This was a very low bar meaning that if a student made any small amount of progress at all, no matter how insignificant, that the district was upholding its responsibility in providing a FAPE.
Thankfully, in 2017 The Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District rectified that. In this case, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the low bar of the Rowley case. The new rule became that IEPs (Individual Education Program) must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of their unique circumstances. Only then can a district be said to be providing a FAPE to its students with disabilities.
FAPE is the issue at hand with those two cases. But what about LRE? For that, we look to the 1993 Oberti v Board of Education case which established inclusion with supplementary aids and services as the presumption because it is “a fundamental value of the right to public education for children with disabilities.” This case also established that schools must make efforts to modify the regular education program to make the curriculum accessible, and if placement outside the general education classroom is necessary (to achieve FAPE), then the school district must still include the child "to the maximum extent appropriate" in as many school programs with children who do not have disabilities.
Taken together, these cases tell us that FAPE trumps LRE, but only by a little. Districts must provide students with disabilities an individualized program that enables the learner to make progress appropriate in light of their circumstances and IF education outside the general education classroom is required to achieve that, then the learner should still be afforded inclusion in as many school programs with nondisabled peers as possible. Furthermore, IDEA Sec. 300.115 tells us that school districts must offer a continuum of alternative placements. And at no point does the law say that once a child is removed from the general education setting that they may never return there.
Who decides what is appropriate? I mean, what is appropriate progress and what is inclusion to the maximum extent appropriate? These are team decisions that unfortunately often result in disagreement and sometimes litigation. It's easy to see why parents and school districts might disagree on what is appropriate progress for a learner when one side may have very different expectations than the other. And when there is disagreement about what is appropriate progress, there will almost certainly be disagreement over how much the learner should or should not be included in general education.
Let me provide two hypothetical scenarios.
Student A is a learner who qualifies for special education with a primary eligibility category of OHI- ADHD as well as a secondary eligibility category of specific learning disabilities in reading, writing, and math. Current placement is itinerant learning support with pull out only for small group testing. Their parents are advocating for more pull out services (more restrictive environment) because they claim their child is not making appropriate progress due to the fact that they are three years behind their peers in reading. The parents want the student pulled out for daily 1:1 or small group reading intervention. The district disagrees stating student is making progress appropriate in light of their unique circumstances. What is "appropriate?" Who is right?
Student B is a learner who qualifies for special education with a primary eligibility category of autism as well as a secondary eligibility category of speech language impairment. Current placement is a self-contained autistic support classroom with inclusion in the general education setting for lunch, art, music, and gym. Their parents are advocating for greater inclusion in general education (less restrictive environment) because they claim their child is not making appropriate progress due to the fact that they are significantly behind in not only academics but also in the areas of social skills and language development. The parents want the student pushed in to general education academic classes with supplementary aids and services. The district disagrees stating student is making progress appropriate in light of their unique circumstances. What is "appropriate?" Who is right?
Does it matter how long the student has been in their current placement before making your decision on who is right? Yes, it could. What about the specific supplementary aids and services that have already been provided? Yes, that matters. What about the staff involved in providing those services? That could matter too. Are there other factors that could be at play in deciding if progress is appropriate? Definitely. My point is, there is a reason why parents and school districts disagree- the question of what is appropriate is never black and white.
So what are we to do?
First, we need to make sure our learners are starting in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services that make sense. Why should a tiny kindergarten student start their education in a segregated classroom? Couldn't separating them from their peers cause harm? (Answer- yes.) What data do we have to know that that child would not make appropriate progress in the general education classroom? (Answer- none.) Disabled learners don't have to earn their place in the general education classroom. That's where they start.
Second, share your expectations for your student with the school team. If your student is Student A in the example above and they want to own their own business someday, tell the team! That learner's dream becomes the team's objective. If your student is Student B in the example above and you know they are capable of independent living someday, tell the team! This expectation becomes the team's objective. Managing expectations to make sure the team is on the same page working toward the same goal is critically important. One of the best ways to do this is to write a Vision Statement, a topic for a future post!
Third, we collect good data. And this can be tricky. What some call "data" others may call confirmation bias. As fellow advocate Lisa Baskin Wright writes, "If we predetermine what a learner is capable of and only expose them to limited curriculum and then rationalize our actions by saying they aren't capable of more academic rigor based on the data, that isn't sound data collection. That's confirmation bias. If we don't provide meaningful learning opportunities in a way that the individual can access them, how can we possibly know what they're capable of?" Good data is required to make good decisions.
Fourth, as I already alluded to, if a learner is placed in a more restrictive setting, that doesn't mean they stay there forever. The team should constantly be looking for opportunities to increase the learner's inclusion with nondisabled peers. After all, school is a learner's community. One day our learners will leave their school community for the broader, real-world community. It is so important to prepare them well, which includes making their school community as much like their future real-world community as possible.
And finally, recognize these three things about inclusive education:
With Love, Light & Gratitude,
Janell
P.S. Not so sure you want to take on this process alone? I can help! Check out my Services page to book a FREE consultation.
コメント