DESCRIPTORS: least restrictive environment, free and appropriate public education, The Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act, Individual Education Plan, placement, location.
SYNOPSIS: the author, a school district administrator and a doctoral student, is describing challenges which teachers and administrators face in the field of special education. The article clarifies some common used but still ambiguous terms, such as placement and location.  Written in the form of a dialogue with the readers, this paper raises a number of important issues and provokes a discussion.

***

Overview of Special Education: FAPE and IEP

The Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 was, at that time, legislation that provided the impetus for educating all students regardless of gender, race, religion or disability.  This Act is what we now refer to as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  Prior to 1975 there were over 1 million children in the United States that were not being provided access to schooling because they had a handicapping condition.  Schools did not provide the resources or accommodations in order to allow these students to attend and have a meaningful school experience.  Often students were refused schooling if they were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded.

The four goals of the 1975 IDEA legislation were:

1. All children will have a free appropriate public education available to them
2. To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected
3. To assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities
4. To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities

These goals have remained consistent over time.  Federal, State and local educational agencies and school districts have continued to put into practice the vision of educating all students and providing meaningful access to school. 

The term Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) has been the foundation of America’s challenge to educate all students with disabilities.  The definition of a FAPE is different for each individual student.  Terms such as, “some adequate progress,” “reasonable” and “appropriate” are the standard for which school teams are held accountable to.  There are many challenges in meeting this threshold of accountability and often it is interpreted differently by schools, parents and the courts.  The terms are purposefully left vague so that no one student is put in a box of what is appropriate.  This is why a student with a qualifying disability has a plan called an Individual Education Plan (IEP).  The key word here is “Individual” and is the basis for the federal law regarding education for disabled students. 

IDEA has defined thirteen qualifying disabilities categories for which a school district can receive special education funding to educate a disabled student.  IDEA defines these thirteen disability categories as:

*For complete definitions of qualifying categories go to: http://idea.ed.gov/

An IEP is generated based on specific qualifications within one of the thirteen qualifying categories which come as a result of a psycho-educational evaluation.  In such evaluation the school team considers cognitive, academic, social/emotional behavior, adaptive, communication and fine/gross motor to see if there is an educational impact which would require Specially Designed Instruction (SDI).  If no areas are present as specific areas of deficit and in need of SDI, the student does not qualify for special education even though he/she may have a diagnosed disability.  When a student does qualify for special education through the psycho-education evaluation, the school team creates measurable goals for each qualifying area and identifies what services and accommodations are needed to fulfill the goals.  The team then meets with the student’s family to discuss and come to agreement on the goals, services, and accommodations.  Given the accountability definitions listed above, these meetings often start with divergent opinions but must come to resolution for the school team and family to move forward.

While LRE is a legal requirement, there are many times that coming to a decision about what LRE will be for an individual child depends largely on the facilities, team capacity to work with particular educational needs and a family’s long-term goals or beliefs about their child.  Another factor in reviewing LRE for an individual student is the relationship between the school team and the family.  There are times when a family would prefer to continue working with a school team because of the relationship they have established over time.  This may occur despite an opportunity for more meaningful services at an alternative location.  This dilemma presents specific challenges around providing a free and appropriate education (legal) versus family choice based on issues not related to a FAPE (personal choice).  The challenge for school personnel is to work with and honor the parents input while keeping within the scope of what IDEA has obligated schools and school teams to provide.

A school team is required to review the goals, services, and accommodations offered to a student at least annually.  At this annual review the school team and family collaborate to develop a new annual plan.  This plan incorporates present levels of educational performance, goal updates and a review of services offered and accommodations provided.  IDEA also requires that the school team conducts an evaluation every three years to determine if the student continues to qualify for special education services or if new areas of service, related services, or accommodations are necessary to provide a FAPE.

Placement versus Location:

IDEA defines both placement and location as separate concepts to help further define Least Restrictive Environment.  The federal Office of Special Education Programs defines placement as the continuum of services offered to a student while the location is defined as the physical setting of the classroom. 

Based on these definitions, location falls under the umbrella of placement.  These concepts are often confused by both professionals and parents when discussing what a student’s program should entail.  Many times the term “placement” is used as a replacement term for “location,” while each party may have the same understanding of how they are using the terms, the challenge with inappropriate definition of these concepts leads to confusion when looking at the complete picture of an IEP.

Since the concept of placement is defined as the continuum of services offered to a student it is important to understand how a continuum of services presents within the context of a school system.  The things to consider within a continuum of services:

• Access to instruction and learning of the general curriculum with typically developing peers.
• Access to Specially Designed Instruction within the general education classroom with typically developing peers.
• Access to Specially Designed Instruction in a location without typically developing peers (special education classroom/setting).
• Access to and implementation of a Behavior Plan to support access to both general education and special education settings.
• Related Services which allow for access to the general and special education curriculum (SLP, OT, PT, Counseling, etc.).
• Appropriate percentage of access to the general education classroom versus the special education classroom.
• Special Day classroom setting – consider the impact of attending school at a location outside of where he/she would attend if they were a student without a disability.
• Special Day classroom setting outside of the school district when a service is needed which the school district cannot provide.
•  Private Placement – consider the impact of attending school at a location inside/outside of the school district in a private school focused on a particular skills set (behavior, social, cognition, etc.)
• Residential Placement – Student is impacted to the point where he/she needs a placement outside of the home due to specific needs (extreme behavior at school and at home, sexually aggressive youth, chronic substance abuse, etc.)
• Home/Hospital placement – student has such substantial medical needs that attending a traditional school causes, or has the potential to cause, significant harm to the child.

It is important to note that a continuum of services is relative to the size and complexity of a school district.  This does not reduce the requirements under IDEA, it simply means how LRE is applied to individual IEP’s will be different.

Small to Medium Sized School District (up to 15,000 students):

For school districts of this size it is extremely challenging to offer a full continuum of services for all disability categories and individual needs.  When the needs of a student reach beyond what a traditional school and special education program can accommodate, a smaller school district has to make decisions about how they will provide a FAPE for these students. Often a small school district will operate a program which focuses on one particular disability or learning category.  Unfortunately it is not possible for this size of district to fund, manage and operate programs that can meet the unique needs of all students that live within their district.  To meet the unique needs of their students, small school districts have to look to other districts to see where the appropriate supports are located (location) and then must provide the necessary related services and transportation for the student to attend school at the identified location. 

This scenario presents unique challenges when working with families and funding a district special education department.  When a small to medium sized district needs to access services through other district’s or private placements it is a challenge to maintain a balanced budget and provide the required services for those students who will remain at their home schools for special education services or within a district program for special education services.  When a student is placed in another school district the cost charged of the home school district will often be three or four times the amount of the funds that student generates from federal and state allocations.

Medium to Large Sized School District (15,000 students and above):

For school districts of medium to large size, there is more flexibility and options for providing a continuum of services which can be located within the boundaries of the school district.  On average the percentage of students supported by special education services is 12.4% in relation to the entire student population.  Given this, a school district with a population of 20,000 could reasonably expect to have about 2,500 students that require special education and related services.  The ability to financially support the necessary programs (location) for those students which cannot be provided a FAPE in their home school is much greater due to the likelihood of having a cohort of students with similar learning needs.  That said, there are still times when medium size school districts need to look outside of their district boundaries in order to provide a FAPE for individual students. 

An example of a disability category that provides unique challenges for a medium size school district is hearing impairments.  Typically these students do not have cognitive delays so they require access to the standard curriculum.  These students also require full access and learning opportunities to develop their communication skills within and outside of the deaf community.  Given this unique set of needs it is typical for one school district in a region to develop this program so that the students are fully prepared for post-high school success.  This success means they are self-sufficient, able to navigate all aspects of life independently, are engaged in age appropriate learning and have access to higher education opportunities.  This example is a microcosm of the challenges to provide for the unique needs of students.  Often times the ability to fully provide a FAPE for students is dependent on the numbers of students within a district that have similar needs.  While it is unfortunate and a last option to send a student to another district, IDEA also puts provisions in place which allow for decisions to be made based on what is reasonable.  Again, IDEA does not define reasonable which further complicates the task given to school teams and parents.

Challenges of the Day-to-Day Administration of a Special Education Department:

As a special education administrator I have the opportunity to work with school administrators, teachers and families every day.  Much of what I do is to help these groups come to resolution on LRE and FAPE issues.  While these terms are rarely used, they are always in the background.  Ultimately, my job is to ensure that each student is provided a Free and Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment. 

In working with a school team I often experience the necessity to help educate them on their ability to provide a continuum of services.  It is easy for school teams to have a limited view of what options can be accessed within their school.  This is either because they have not worked with a student with such learning needs or challenges or they are simply tired of trying. 
It is much easier to help a school team that needs only training and professional development.  We have specialists in many areas or we are able to bring in specialists from outside of the school district to help school teams develop a program that allows for a continuum of services.   It is more challenging when a school team feels they do not have the energy to continue working with a particular situation.  This makes it very difficult to provide a true measure of a FAPE and LRE.  IDEA does not allow for the consideration of staff related issues (stamina to provide appropriate programming, overly demanding parents, etc.) except in the situation where a student is causing physical harm to the staff. 

As part of the consideration of LRE, the school team must consider three undefined criteria from which to support the decision of placement and location.  These criteria are written in the negative and are used as reasons to “reject” a placement.  These criteria are:

• Academic benefit cannot be satisfactorily achieved
• Non-academic benefit cannot be satisfactorily achieved
• Effect student will have on teacher and other students

It is important for school teams and parents to review these criteria.  Without a full exploration of these criteria it is likely a student will not have an appropriate placement.  When working with school teams and parents to come to agreement on these criteria it is often that there is no initial agreement.  It is typically my role to help school teams and parents come to agreement so that both parties can move forward and start working on the student’s educational program.  What is interesting about these criteria is that they allude to the rights of others as well as the rights of the student.  All students have the right to an environment where they can learn without a significant amount of distraction and teachers have the right to teach in an environment where all students can learn.  It is the responsibility of the school team and parents to make the determinations about impact on the student and others.  When it is determined that the student has a negative impact on the teacher and other students it is their responsibility to then make a determination as to what placement (including location) is such that it will not have this negative effect on teacher and other students.

This is a conversation that I am continuously working through with many schools and families.  Each time I engage in this conversation it is different.  There are always factors which make these situations unique and challenging.  Most of the time we are able to navigate these decisions with positive outcomes while other times the relationship with a family is strained or broken.  Even after challenging decisions are made we need to find a way to work with all families, even those families we have strained relations with.  The key factor that both sides can focus on is the student and making sure we are doing the best we can given the variables which are in place regarding the student’s placement, location, and program needs.

Another aspect of my job which is related to both LRE and FAPE is the dedication of a 1:1 para-educator (aide) to support a student’s program.  A 1:1 aide allows a student to attend his/her general education class with greater frequency.  This is often appealing to parents when their children are young (5-12 years old) because it seems as though they may learn from their peers.  This is also a decision which is placed on the IEP team (school team and parents).  Some of the issues the team needs to consider is the appropriateness of the educational opportunities, what instruction the student is able to access in the setting with an aide support, creating adult dependence rather than student independence and social implications of having an adult next to a student for long periods of time.  There are times when a 1:1 adult can benefit a student and is required in order for a district to provide a FAPE for that individual child.  Again, these are challenging discussions which can create divides between school teams and families if the discussion is not appropriately managed.

Core Ethic about Educating Students with Disabilities

America has a core belief that all students have a right to an education regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status or disability.  In addition, it is the desire that students learn with their community peers and in their general education classrooms to the greatest extent possible.  This ethic does not come with its challenges.  A general education teacher has a wide range of learners in the classroom.  This means instructional strategies of differentiation and modification are required for every lesson taught.  As class sizes continue to increase the ability to differentiate and modify curriculum continues to become more challenging.

Is there enough benefit to continue educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom?

Without hesitation my answer is, yes.

Our dedication to educate all students in the Least Restrictive Environment gives evidence to the value and acceptance of all people regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status or disability.  America has worked to provide equal rights for all people which continues to be a work in progress.  Laws about educating students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment have only been in place for less than 30 years.  Another benefit to educating students with disabilities in the home school is the learning that takes place for the non-disabled students.  They get to learn and interact with students that have differences which allows for empathy, respect and acceptance to be fostered.  These interactions allow for a personal ethic to build in all students which will be foundational to life.  We see many examples of students learning to help their disabled peers work through challenges be it academics, behavioral or social. 

At one school a classroom of eight-year-olds decided that they wanted to take turns being a “recess buddy” for an Autistic girl in their classroom.  This has proven to be a very effective learning tool for this girl as she is now able to socialize with many more individuals and groups during unstructured social times.  While we cannot measure the benefit of this effort on the typically developing peers, we can project that this act of including someone with differences is a building block to continued inclusive thinking.  In another school a boy who was severely delayed in all areas was seen to be having behavioral challenges every afternoon.  This student was in a special day classroom and did not have much interaction with his typical peers due to his impact on others’ learning.  Two students from his general education classroom found out about his struggle and wanted to help.  They volunteered to meet with this student and do activities for the last 30 minutes of school every day.  This was the trigger that allowed the disabled student to regulate his behavior because he looked forward to his time with his new friends.  Three years later I saw these students interacting together in the lunch room of the Jr. High.  I found out these boys ate lunch with the disabled student 2-3 times per week.  They referred to him as their friend. 

These are just two situations which provide some evidence of the benefits to involving both typically developing students and students with disabilities in the same educational settings.  Students are learning to interact with individuals who are different.  Lastly, students with disabilities learn more and better when they have models they can learn from.  Whether the learning is social, academic or behavior watching their same-age peers function successfully is learning that can’t be taught by an adult.

Information Sources:
OSEP Policy Documents Regarding the Education of Infants, Toddlers, Children and Youth with Disabilities

• Letter to Tom Trigg
• November 30, 2007
• Topic: Least Restrictive Environment
• Letter clarifying the placement requirements in Part B of IDEA.
• Letter to Mrs. Barbara Gantwerk
• November 4, 2003
• Topic: Least Restrictive Environment
• Letter regarding the least restrictive environment provisions of the IDEA and the placement of children with disabilities in segregated settings, with parental approval.

List of disability category definitions: http://idea.ed.gov/
Washington Administrative Codes regarding Special Education: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=392-172a
Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education Office: http://www.k12.wa.us/specialed/