Least Restrictive Environment Research Articles

Examining paradoxes of access in disability law: a critical analysis of the least restrictive environment

ABSTRACT We employ theoretical pluralism and engage in a multi-level analysis to understand how the racialized segregation of students with dis/Abilities persists despite a commitment to inclusion via the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provision embedded within one of the most significant civil rights inspired legislation impacting students with dis/Abilities in the United States (US) – the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We use critical discourse analysis, case study and vignette analysis, and critical autoethnography to understand how injustices are sustained across macro (legal), meso (school or institutional), and micro (student) levels of the school system through the LRE provision. We find that the LRE provision promotes ableism and fails to adequately address intersectionalities which sustain racialized educational inequities under a rights framework across macro, meso, and micro levels. We conclude by describing how the LRE provision sustains inequality and promotes seclusion under the guise of inclusion.

Exploring the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for Quality Inclusion of Special Needs in Pakistan: Needs, Policies, and Practice

The inclusion of Special Education Needs (SEN) students in mainstream schooling is well anticipated in developed countries. Segregated forms of education for SEN incur huge financial costs and give also room for social segregation for SEN. The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is a pre-condition for the inclusion of SEN. The LRE is an ideal environment that copes with the needs of SEN in mainstream schooling.  Through this exploratory qualitative study, we explored the Pakistan context while examining documents describing policies related to the inclusion of SEN addressing LRE. The study conducted 10 interviews with teachers & heads of mainstream schools, teachers & heads of Special Education Schools, and parents of both Normal and Special Students as well. The sample was selected purposely from the Sargodha division. Qualitative data reflected about ongoing practices of proponents’ stakeholders. For all this, the study also examined the allocation of funds to ensure LRE in Punjab Public Schools. The qualitative data reflected core themes: possibility, accessibility, opportunities & survival, accommodation, infrastructure, policy provisions, and resources. We proposed that policy and practice gaps must be addressed. To make schools of mainstream education accessible, there is a need to furnish a friendly school structure. In Pakistan as compared to other countries, the idea of inclusion could not gain reasonable attention because of various factors. The behavior of stakeholders has not been so good for this idea. Therefore, there is a need to conduct seminars, conferences, and public campaigns

Hard LRE Choices in the Era of Inclusion: Rights and Their Implications

Rights of students are often misunderstood. Civil rights of minorities granted by the U.S. Supreme Court are confused with human rights of individuals with disabilities granted by the U.S. Congress. Federal law applying to the education of individuals with disabilities requires that difficult decisions be made by families and schools regarding how to address four different and interrelated provisions of Public Law 94-142 of 1975 (now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 or IDEA): (a) a free, appropriate public education (FAPE), (b) an Individualized Education Program (IEP), (c) placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and (d) a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP). Special attention is given to LRE because the full inclusion movement and other influences related to a portion of disability studies have made it the central issue in special education. Under the law, three hard-to-answer questions must be asked in all cases involving special education: (a) What is an appropriate special education for a particular student with a disability? (b) What is the LRE in which that most appropriate education can occur for that individual student? (c) What is the CAP related to that individualized appropriate education?

Applying Co-Teaching Models to Enhance Partnerships Between Teachers and Speech-Language Pathologists

U.S. schools are required to educate students in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The number of students with high incidence disabilities, including those with speech or language impairments (SLI), who spend most of their day in the general education classroom has increased in the last decade. Establishing classrooms that proactively address the learning needs of students with SLI is essential to ensure that students are educated in the LRE. Co-teaching is an instructional strategy that utilizes the expertise of two educators to provide instruction in the general education classroom. This article provides an overview of the research on co-teaching and rationale for use with teachers and speech-language pathologists (SLPs), defines two models of co-teaching that can be used between teachers and SLPs to provide instruction in general education classrooms, and offers examples of co-teaching models in practice.

How “special needs” vouchers deceive the public and silence the right to inclusive education

The rapid growth of special needs vouchers has been accompanied by the loss of historic civil rights and protections under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We examine three of the largest special needs voucher programs in the United States: those in Florida, Georgia and Ohio. We find that these programs and the largest private special education schools within these states are silent on the right to education in the LRE. This study focuses on how silencing the right to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE), thus inclusive education, is taking place. Using Huckin’s framework of textual silence and critical discourse analysis, we identify this silence as manipulative, drawing connections between historical segregation, neoliberal ideology and the rhetoric of market choice in the United States. We discuss implications regarding segregation, equity, and education policy.

TEACHING READING IN HOME LANGUAGE AT FOUNDATION PHASE: AN ANALYSIS OF CONTEXTUAL ISSUES

This study analysed the contextual issues that are an integral part in the teaching of reading in Sepedi (HL) in Mpumalanga Province. Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological systems theory underpinned this study. An ethnographic case study design that is an interpretive paradigm was used. Four schools (A, B, C & D) were sampled in the study and in each of these; two teachers were purposively selected as participants. Individual interviews, classroom observations and document analysis, were used to collect relevant data. This was analysed thematically. The process involved data organisation, coding and categorising it into different themes as directed by the study. The major findings were that there is lack of clear policies on the teaching of reading in home languages like Sepedi. Furthermore, there is an indisputable shortage of Sepedi reading materials in schools and this affects the development of a reading culture in learners amongst other issues. Poor parental involvement also seemed to be another impediment to anticipated learning outcomes. This article therefore argues that the development of policies, which are specific on the teaching of home languages like Sepedi, should be prioritised. In addition, the government and other relevant stakeholders must continuously thrive to ensure the provision of adequate reading materials in schools. Above all, schools must create leastrestrictive environments that encourage active participation of parents in the entire teaching and learning process.

Cracks in the Continuum: A Critical Analysis of Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Significant Support Needs

Background/Context Federal laws require equitable access to education for students with disabilities through educational placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE). However, research has determined students with significant support needs (SSN) are overrepresented in segregated educational placements. Focus of Study This study explores justifications of LRE placement decisions for students with SSN through a critical qualitative analysis. We evaluated how individualized education program (IEP) teams interpret LRE and justify placement decisions for students with SSN. Additionally, we sought to understand how the interpretation of LRE permits or restricts access to general education for students with SSN. Population Students with SSN are those who require support across multiple domains and often have disabilities in the categories of autism, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, and deaf-blindness. Research Design We used a qualitative methodology situated in a critical geography framework. Data were derived from the LRE statements found in IEPs of students with SSN. Each statement included in this study was used to identify the three power relationship spaces derived from critical geography theory: utopia, dystopia, and heterotopia. Findings Three types of placement decisions were identified. Students with SSN were most often offered conditional placements and less frequently closed or open placements. Rationales for LRE decisions revealed barriers to accessing general education contexts related to hidden power dynamics, attempts to maintain social norms, and the use of ambiguous terminology. Data analysis also revealed that LRE justifications generate special education heterotopias that create illusive access to the general education context and content for students with SSN. Conclusions/Recommendations The application of critical theory assists in understanding the continued overrepresentation of students with SSN in placements that limit access to general education. Findings from this study suggest the discontinuation of the continuum of special education placements to dismantle the inequitable structures of special education for students with SSN.

Teacher Readiness in Adapted Physical Education: Teaching the “Able,” Not the “Label”

The majority of physical education teacher education (PETE) programs include some form of adapted physical education (APE) training for preservice teachers; yet PETE candidates report feeling underprepared to teach individuals with disabilities. The number of students with disabilities included in general education continues to grow, in accordance with inclusion legislation, particularly free appropriate public education (FAPE) and least restrictive environment (LRE). The aim of this article is to present a template or overview of the essential topics and methods that should be included in an APE course for PETE candidates.

Reflecting on the Education Position Statement of AAIDD and The Arc

AbstractThis article expands on 10 critical actions within the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and The Arc's 2018 joint position statement on the right of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) to have a free and appropriate public education (FAPE): (a) zero reject; (b) nondiscriminatory and comprehensive eligibility evaluations and appropriate assessments; (c) high expectations and FAPE; (d) autonomy, self-determination, and decision-making supports; (e) inclusion and least restrictive environments (LRE); (f) safe and supportive education environments; (g) school choice; (h) family and student participation; (i) lifelong education, transition, and postsecondary education; and (j) system capacity development, funding, oversight, and accountability. Research findings documenting positive outcomes associated with implementing each area of action are described and relevant legal mandates and case law are discussed. Recommendations are made for changes to educational systems and practices that create barriers to the access of FAPE for students with IDD.

The State of Inclusion With Students With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the United States

AbstractThis article describes the state of inclusion and inclusive practices with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) in the United States. It reviews the legislative history of the right to a free, appropriate public education for students with disabilities and the requirement in U.S. law for special education services to be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Despite a focus on the LRE and appropriate supplementary aids and services to promote success in regular education environments for students with I/DD, students with I/DD are still educated largely in segregated classrooms and settings in the United States. However, a large and growing body of research suggests the positive benefits of inclusive education providing a compelling need for ongoing change to make inclusive placements the default for students with I/DD, consistent with the law. Research clearly suggests that inclusive placements benefit students with I/DD, and emerging research highlights that engagement and access to the general education curriculum is higher in inclusive vs. segregated settings. There is an ongoing need for the implementation of the policy establishing the right to education in the LRE for students with ID, and recent court cases suggesting the importance of an “appropriately ambitious” education program provide new direction for progress in inclusive practices.

‘We’re asking teachers to do more with less': perspectives on least restrictive environment implementation in physical education

ABSTRACT The current practice of the least restrictive environment (LRE) policy in physical education (PE) settings is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to explore how PE and adapted physical education (APE) teachers make placement decisions and what factors impact those practices. Qualitative data were collected via survey and follow-up interviews with 78 (30 PE, 48 APE) and 12 (five PE, seven APE) teachers, respectively. Through a qualitative description design, four themes emerged: (a) the importance and pitfalls of teacher education, (b) APE teachers involved, PE teachers not, (c) lack of resources challenge LRE implementation and (d) demanding duties exacerbated by perceived marginalization. Findings suggest that the teacher education programs did not provide enough real-world experience in making LRE decisions. Further, PE and APE teachers felt that marginalization prevented the appropriate practice of the special education policy.

The Capabilities Approach to Inclusive Education: re-envisioning the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s Least Restrictive Environment

This article aims to produce an innovative interpretation of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) to secure inclusive education for children with disabilities using the capabilities approach to a theory of justice. The focus of the capabilities approach on human dignity and human diversity makes it an ideal tool for re-envisioning the LRE requirements that ensure children with disabilities are appropriately entitled to the effective freedoms and compensatory resources of equity-based inclusive education beyond mere equal access to public education. The article proposes a capabilities approach-based interpretation of the LRE provisions by providing: a social-relational model of disability that emphasizes the relational mechanism of a disability between internal and external arrangements; a holistic view that balances intrinsic and extrinsic goods of education; and a justice claim for additional educational provisions in inclusive education for children with disabilities.

How to Use Colleague Education to Help Your Caseload

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderSchool Matters1 Aug 2019How to Use Colleague Education to Help Your CaseloadSchool-based SLPs balance many roles, but going beyond those roles to partner with colleagues can save time. Marie IrelandMEd, CCC-SLP Marie Ireland Google Scholar More articles by this author , MEd, CCC-SLP https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.SCM.24082019.38 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In The new school year is an exciting time for school-based speech-language pathologists. They immediately begin serving students on their caseloads, collaborating with educators, and communicating with parents. A new school year also brings opportunities to work with teachers and school teams to address concerns for students who struggle. Here are some strategies to help balance these roles. Comprehensive evaluation With high caseloads and shortages of SLPs across the country, it is critical that school-based providers deepen their understanding of—and reinforce the team’s need to adhere to—the real eligibility requirements for IDEA. When others refer to our services as “just speech,” we need to share the seriousness of identifying a child as having a disability. Your school colleagues might not realize that misidentifying a child under IDEA violates the child’s civil rights. Dangers of over-identification can include lower expectations, a less rigorous curriculum, and social stigma experienced by students with IEPs. Inappropriate identification also increases SLPs’ caseloads and takes valuable time away from students who truly have disabilities. A student must meet all three prongs of the federal definition—and any additional state requirements—to be found eligible under IDEA as a student with a speech-language impairment. IDEA requires the team to document: Speech or language impairment. Educational impact resulting from the speech or language impairment. Need for specially designed instruction. Meeting these requirements differs from clinical identification. School SLPs must gather input from a variety of data sources. Classroom teachers should provide data on educational impact, strategies they tried to help the student, and outcomes from those attempts. SLPs should perform comprehensive evaluations, and gather evidence of educational impact and the need for specially designed instruction. Provision of direct and indirect services Many school-based SLPs provide direct services in the “speech” room. However, providing direct services in the least restrictive environment (LRE) is a longstanding part of IDEA regulations. A federal data requirement, Indicator 5 Least Restrictive Environment, now requires states and school districts to report the amount of time each student spends removed from general education. SLPs who frequently pull students into a separate room might unknowingly hurt their own school and school district’s performance. Integrating direct services into students’ classroom settings—when appropriate—helps ensure services in LRE (see “Think Beyond You: Activate the Power of Your School Treatment Team”). In addition to the policy changes that support in-class services, some research shows in-class services to improve students’ curricular vocabulary skills are as effective as pull-out services. Being in a classroom also makes it easier to gather data on students’ functional communication skills. These data inform educational impact and the need for specially designed instruction required for eligibility (and dismissal) decision-making. Beyond these advantages to students on SLPs’ caseloads, students who don’t have disabilities can also benefit from SLPs in the classroom. This “incidental benefit” is permissible under IDEA when services are “provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to a child with a disability.” In addition to direct services, SLPs can provide indirect services—supports or services offered on behalf of a student. Examples of indirect services include consulting with teachers, modifying assignments or tests, and programming assistive technology devices. Including indirect services in an IEP also highlights the important contributions of the SLP beyond direct service and might increase communication supports from others working with the student. A popular method combining direct and indirect services is the 3:1 workload model. Interprofessional education (IPE) IDEA requires school staff and parents to work as a team. As vital members of eligibility and IEP teams, SLPs can also influence others beyond the teams. Initiatives such as multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) and response to intervention (RTI) provide opportunities for SLPs to learn from, educate, and practice alongside other educators. Through IPE, school SLPs are uniquely poised to help general educators learn about difference versus disorder, language diversity and dialect, the impact of poverty on language and learning, and strategies to improve communication. When SLPs share their expertise, they can improve outcomes for the wider school community. School SLPs can present at a faculty or PTA meeting, or write about the importance of communication for the school newsletter. As school-based professionals, we already serve students with disabilities and their families. We can also influence others by sharing our knowledge and expertise. As school SLPs move forward into the new school year, it’s a perfect time to reaffirm our roles and try something new. Strive to reinforce that what you do isn’t “just speech.” And let others know that special education is for students who are truly disabled and meet all federal and state criteria. This is also an ideal time of year to educate others about the importance of communication and to consider possible changes in your service delivery to better align with education policy and research. Working together, we can make effective communication accessible and achievable for students in our public schools! Author Notes Marie Ireland, MEd, CCC-SLP, ASHA vice president for speech-language pathology practice, is a specialist for speech-language pathology at the Virginia Department of Education. She is also Virginia’s representative to the State Education Agencies Communication Disabilities Council and an affiliate of ASHA Special Interest Group 16, School-Based Issues. [email protected] Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 24Issue 8August 2019 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Aug 1, 2019 Metrics Current downloads: 1,263 Topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2019 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...

Trends in LRE Placement Rates Over the Past 25 Years

The least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate suggests a preference for educating students with disabilities in general education settings provided their needs can be met there. This study examined national trends in the educational placements of students with disabilities ages 6 to 17 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia from 1990 through 2015. Data were retrieved electronically from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau websites. Cumulative placement rates were then calculated. Findings indicate that from 1990 through 2015, (a) general education placements increased while more restrictive placements decreased, (b) students in secondary schools continued to be placed in more restrictive settings, and (c) the impact of disability categories on national LRE trends varied. Future research is needed to investigate the effect of increased identification rates in specific disability categories on national placement trends and explore how placement practices vary across schools, districts, and states.

Revisiting the Narrative about Least Restrictive Environment in Physical Education

ABSTRACTSince 1975, the implementation of the Least Restrictive Environment, a federal mandate of Public Law 94–142, has been historically challenging for physical educators and adapted physical educators. Confusion and misinterpretation of the law’s intent, as well as competing ideologies, have perpetuated failed Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) practice in the United States. The purpose of this essay is to revisit the conversation about LRE in PE and to provide direction for higher education’s role in addressing the issues. In doing so, a detailed historical context of the LRE is provided, followed by a discussion of the issues associated with the law that have emerged in the literature. Finally, future research directions to address these contemporary issues are presented to the readers.

Special Education Placement Trends: Least Restrictive Environment Across Five Years in California

The least restrictive environment (LRE) is the legal right for students with disabilities to be included and educated with their non-disabled peers. However, at a fundamental level, LRE can be misinterpreted and measured inconsistently, creating a contentious environment for some schools and families of students with special needs. In the current study, using descriptive content analysis, special education due process hearings in the State of California over a five-year period available through the Office of Administrative Hearings were examined in order to identify characteristics of the students involved in LRE litigation and trends of LRE cases across the years. Results revealed that students involved in LRE-related hearings were mostly male, English-speaking, and classified as having a special education eligibility category of autism. An increase in general education placement was shown, and a decrease in home-hospital instruction. Future directions and implications for the implementation of LRE for school psychologists and special education teams are discussed.

Can Charter Schools Address Racial Inequities Evidenced in Access to the General Education Classroom? A Longitudinal Study in Chicago Public Schools

This study presents a longitudinal analysis of racial inequities evidenced in placement patterns in the least restrictive environment (LRE). We compared placement trends in neighborhoods and charter schools for Black and White students receiving special education services (SRSES). Drawing from the concept of institutional isomorphism and using a longitudinal analysis of odds ratio, we examined annual school data from 2008 to 2012 on students’ placement in the LRE in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Our findings indicate that over time charter schools mirror neighborhood schools’ (NS) racial inequities evidenced in access to general education classrooms.

Home as the Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Medical Disabilities

School leaders have a prominent role on Individual Education Program (IEP) teams and often face very challenging obstacles when determining substantive educational services and placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with medical disabilities. In absence of federal statutory and regulatory policy, standard legal research methodology was used to determine whether explicit and implicit recommendations existed for school leaders elsewhere in the law for the use of homebound placements for students with medical disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Homebound instructional services can be an LRE because educational services are provided to students who would be unable to attend school programs and activities.

The Modified Physical Education Class: An Option for the Least Restrictive Environment

Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), requires all children with disabilities to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The LRE requirement means that students with disabilities, to the maximum extent possible, should be educated in the general educational environment with their typically developing peers. The core content area of physical education is no exception. This article shares the benefits of implementing the “modified” placement as a viable option for LRE when providing adapted physical education for some children with disabilities.

Status of Inclusive Educational Placement for Students With Extensive and Pervasive Support Needs

Abstract Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 established procedural mandates and accountability requirements ensuring all students with disabilities participate and progress in general education curriculum. Broadly speaking, improvements toward greater access have been found for many students with disabilities; however, the extent to which this holds true for students with extensive and pervasive support needs is not evident. Past research associated with least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with extensive and pervasive support needs was considered when replicating previous research using the cumulative placement rate to analyze LRE data for students with extensive and pervasive support needs (autism, intellectual disability, deaf blindness, and multiple disabilities). Results indicate that student with extensive and pervasive support needs have substantially less positive LRE placement trends over the past 15 years with most placed in separate classrooms and settings. Recommendations for transforming federal and state policies and procedures are shared.