As you become more knowledgeable about the field of special education, you will see that there are many acronyms to describe the multitude of terms in the field. Here’s an example: “According to IDEA, students must be provided a FAPE in the LRE, otherwise an ARC will have to be convened to determine how well the student’s IEP objectives are being met.” It can get quite confusing as you are learning the terms! But for this unit, we are only concerned with the LRE. This stands for the least restrictive environment. IDEA, the federal law governing the education of students with disabilities, lists the LRE as one of its regulations. However, in its definition, it never uses the term “inclusion”. Nonetheless, the law’s intent is very clear. The law contains the presumption that children with disabilities are most appropriately educated with their nondisabled peers and removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment should only occur when 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.

Every decision made for a child with a disability must be made on the basis of what that individual child needs. Nonetheless, when the decision is made to educate the child separately, an explanation of that decision will need to be stated as part of the child’s IEP.

Since 1975, the section of the law that addresses the LRE has consistently said the same thing: “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 that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when 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”.

To be in accordance with the law, a school is supposed to consider the regular classroom that is in the school the student would attend if he or she did not have a disability. This is the first option for each student with a disability before a more restrictive placement is considered. If a student with a disability can be educated satisfactorily with appropriate aids and supports in the regular classroom in the school the student would attend if he or she did not have a disability, that placement is the LRE placement for that student. However, if the placement team determines that a student cannot be educated satisfactorily in that classroom, even with the provision of appropriate aids and supports, then “more restrictive” (that is “more segregated”) arrangements for that student are considered. Even then, the law clearly states that any alternative placement selected for the student outside of the regular educational environment must maximize opportunities for the student to interact with non-disabled peers, to the extent appropriate for the needs of the student.

IDEA does not require that every student with a disability, regardless of individual abilities and needs, be placed in the regular classroom. This recognition that regular class placement may not be appropriate for every student is reflected in the requirement that school districts make available a range of placement options. This range of options is known as a continuum of alternative placements. The purpose of this continuum is to meet the unique educational needs of students with disabilities. The options on this continuum must include the alternative placements listed in the law (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and residential placements). The following illustration outlines the least restrictive alternative continuum.

One of the major controversies in special education today revolves around the continuum, least restrictive environment, and inclusion. Some authorities say that because successful inclusion for all students has been successful in many schools around the country, this should be the least restrictive setting for all students. Supporters of this position say the need is not to define a continuum of places but to configure the unique array of special supports needed for the student to be successful and the classroom to run smoothly. One of the arguments raised by defenders of this position is that the continuum was a useful concept in the days when most people with disabilities were segregated, but now it has become a problem because it offers justification for segregation of some students. Further, they argue inclusion prepares students with disabilities to use the skills they are learning in the real world where there are few “protective” special settings. They offer evidence that in effectively managed collaborative settings, all teachers become more effective instructors using a wider array of teaching strategies that enhance learning for all. Finally, supporters feel inclusion prepares all students to better participate in our diverse world where we must continually interact with people with different abilities, ways of acting, appearances, and beliefs. The following picture illustrates the idea of an array of supports as an alternative to the continuum.

Others say that while many--if not most students--can be successful in the regular class with adequate supports, there is still a need for a continuum of placement options. They say it is unrealistic to demand the regular classroom accommodate students with some of the most difficult needs and that the special needs of these students do still require some sort of special setting. Some of the most articulate spokespeople for this opinion state that highly effective specialized instructional techniques cannot be used in large group settings. Defenders of this position feel that specialized settings are needed to practice and master skills that the student can (when mastered) take out and apply in the world beyond the special education room. They would say that the security of a supportive environment prepares the student with confidence for managing effectively in the larger world. While there is an honest dispute here, it is important to note that no one in this dialogue is advocating a return to the exclusionary practices of the past. There is essentially universal agreement “that children with disabilities are most appropriately educated with their nondisabled peers.” However, there is substantial controversy on how this can be achieved.

While there is an honest dispute here, it is important to note that no one in this dialogue is advocating a return to the exclusionary practices of the past.  There is essentially universal agreement “that children with disabilities are most appropriately educated with their nondisabled peers.”  However, there is substantial controversy on how this can be achieved.

There have been many court cases over what is considered an appropriate educational placement for students with disabilities. One such case, Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H., led to the development of the Rachel H. Four Factor Test. The court used four factors to determine if the educational placement for this student in a regular education class was appropriate. To learn about these factors see the activity below.

Now that you have had an opportunity to read and think about the Least Restrictive Environment, the continuum of placements, and inclusion, what do you think?  Which argument do you find the most persuasive and why?  Look back on your own school experience; how effective have your schools been at meeting the LRE mandate?  What do you feel are the implications of this discussion for what is currently going on in your high school?