IDEA: History and Legal Issues

Autism litigation: Outcomes for 2010, trends in decision making and changes in diagnostic criteria

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

This study examined the implementation of the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for secondary students with learning disabilities on Guam. The research questions for the study addressed the following areas: (a) perceptions of the definition of LRE, (b) factors influencing the implementation of LRE, and (c) determination of LRE in relation to the national trends and literature. This research utilized the qualitative method of collecting and analyzing data that included interviews and review of written documents. Parents and school personnel from the secondary schools, involved in the implementation of the least restrictive environment, were interviewed to obtain their perception of the definition of LRE and the factors influencing its implementation. The responses of the interviews were triangulated with information from randomly selected Individual Education Programs (IEPs) and placement rates for secondary students with learning disabilities from the 1995–96 to the 1999–2000 school years. A summary of the responses by school personnel to the question related to the definition of LRE resulted in the following: (a) least restrictive environment refers to the needs of the child, (b) least restrictive environment refers to ensuring access to education for the child, (c) least restrictive environment addresses both access to the general education classroom as well as the individual needs of the child, and (d) least restrictive environment refers to the rights of the child to an education. School personnel also identified seven factors as having an influence in its implementation: (a) IDEA requirement of 1997 related to access and progress in the general curriculum, (b) federal policy, (c) DOE structure and educational delivery system, (d) advocacy, (e) due process and litigations, (f) preparation of individuals involved with the implementation of LRE, and (g) values and beliefs. With the parents, the majority of them indicated they were not familiar with the term least restrictive environment. For the parents, the following were identified as having an influence on the implementation of LRE: (a) the distribution of funds, (b) advocacy, (c) due process and litigations, (d) preparation of individuals responsible for the implementation of LRE, and (e) values and beliefs. School personnel and parents identified the administrator and the consulting resource teacher (CRT) as the individuals most influential in ensuring the implementation of LRE. A review of the IEPs for the past five years revealed that students with learning disabilities have been placed in more restrictive settings as

This article presents a critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment (LRE). The article begins with a review of the origins of LRE in professional writings and law and moves next to a discussion of how LRE has been operationalized in terms of a continuum of residential, educational, and vocational services. Building on previous critiques of the continuum concept, the author presents seven conceptual and philosophical flaws or pitfalls in the LRE principle itself, especially when it is applied to people with severe disabilities. The author then argues that an uncritical acceptance of LRE may lead to the establishment of a “new” community-based continuum and takes the position that many leading writings in the field can be interpreted to legitimate this new continuum. The conclusion of the article supports an unconditional commitment to integration and briefly contrasts integration with LRE as a guiding principle for the design of services and support for people with developmental disabilities and concludes with a note on the importance of viewing concepts in historical context.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles students with a disability to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The FAPE entitlement is broadly defined in IDEA and the word appropriate in the acronym is not defined in the law. Any existing standards, understandings, and meanings of FAPE are defined primarily by litigation and judicial decisions. The research literature specifically around a meaning of appropriate and a shared meaning of FAPE is non-existent. The lack of a shared meaning of FAPE throughout the special education system creates the opportunity for poor student programming and the potential to instigate conflict. This study uses a constructivist grounded theory approach to answer research questions about: The foundational components of FAPE that contribute to positive educational outcomes for students with disabilities enrolled in public schools; the relationship of the individualized education program to the basic components of FAPE as it relates to appropriateness and its positive impact on student educational outcomes; and, the points of convergence and divergence between parents and school district personnel around the meaning of appropriate. The study proposes that the place to find any existing shared meaning of FAPE, and build on that shared meaning, is in the dynamic between parents and school district personnel currently involved with the public school special education system on a day to day basis. With data collected through mixed methods, semi-structured interviews and survey, the research compares parent and school district personnel perspectives on FAPE and concludes that a foundation exists for the construction in context of a shared meaning of FAPE. Points of convergence around a shared meaning of FAPE include student success, individualization, placement, and engagement with general education and non-disabled peers. The study includes recommendations for policy improvements intended to directly impact FAPE for students with disabilities.

COVID-19 has engendered serious challenges with the provision of special education services for youth and young adults incarcerated in U.S. adult correctional facilities. This article describes the recent lawsuit, Charles H. et al. v. District of Columbia et al., which focused on the lack of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) at the Inspiring Youth Program (IYP) school in the Washington DC jail during the pandemic. Following a brief review of relevant components of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2006) regulations, we describe the three areas in which there were violations to the provision of IDEA and FAPE, as well as the harm incurred. Specifically, we discuss the lack of: (a) instruction and monitoring of youth academic progress; (b) related services (i.e., behavioral interventions and supports, counseling); and (c) DC public schools Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) supervision and oversight. Finally, we provide a discussion of the need for compensatory education to remediate harm.

The foundation of inclusion in special education law is the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This federal mandate requires that all students with disabilities receive their education with students without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Our purpose in this chapter is to examine the legal basis of inclusion. We first review the historical antecedents of inclusion. Second, we examine the LRE mandate and the student placement requirements of the IDEA. Third, we survey the most important case law rulings regarding LRE and the placement of students with disabilities. Fourth, we consider strategies that have been used to promote inclusive placements and briefly review the literature on these strategies. We end this chapter by offering principles to guide IEP team members in making educationally beneficial and legally correct placement decisions for students with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) has been instrumental in ensuring that qualified students with disabilities receive a free appro priate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. Determining the parameters of FAPE, however, has been a daunting task for school personnel and especially for school administrators. Principals find themselves increasingly challenged by a multitude of legal and policy issues regarding special education that are often dif ficult to understand yet necessary to address.

This chapter examines how actors across federal, state, district, and school levels approached the legal mandate to provide a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on nine months of fieldwork in a mid-sized Midwestern school district, discussions with administrators, and document analysis, this work comprises a comparative case study (CCS) that sought to understand how varied actors differentially emphasized and guided the provision of FAPE. Actors from the federal to the district level variably referenced the extent to which entities across scales were responsible for FAPE. District and school actors prioritized specially designed instruction provided by a special education teacher over the broader educational program that FAPE entails under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). This CCS shows how varied engagements with FAPE overlapped with practical constraints of virtual schooling contexts to limit the enactment of FAPE at the school level. This study contributes to CCS research by highlighting how patterns in policy discourses across scales inform the adaptation of policy in practice. By demonstrating how and why policy takes form in practice, this work holds implications for how practitioners and policymakers can better support the provision of FAPE.

New Service Delivery Models: Connecting SLPs with Teachers and Curriculum

The concept of least restrictive environments (LRE), originally conceived by Deno (1970) and Reynolds (1962) to advocate for a range of special education placements for children with disabilities, has become synonymous with a continuum of physical education placement options for students with disabilities. Many models have been presented over the years. Options range from full-time regular physical education in a regular school to full-time adapted physical education in a special school or facility, with various placement options in between. The emphasis of these models is on varying the placement to meet the needs of the student with disabilities. Taylor (1988) has identified several flaws to the concept of LRE placement options. In addition, many special education professionals advocate placing all students with disabilities in regular education with varying levels of support (e.g., Stainback & Stainback, 1990). This paper discusses an alternative to the traditional continuum of LRE placement options. This new model presents a continuum of support which emphasizes how much and what type of assistance is provided to a particular student with disabilities that will enable him/her to succeed in regular physical education.

Camera, 208 Capitalism, scepticism of policies on education in future based on society with influx of, 42 Carnegie Learning, 251-252 Central government, 92 Challenges to inclusion, 84-85 Change of practice concept, 253 Character qualities of sets in twenty-first century, 25-33 communicative competencies, 28-31 digital competencies, 31-33 'grit' for inclusive and special education teachers, 27-28 high self-efficacy, 25-27 Children, rights and characteristics of, 4-5 Children with disabilities in rural areas in Telangana state, providing services to, 174-177 259 Children with special needs in VUCA world, preparation for education administrators to manage education for, 241-244 Chlorpyrifos, 64-65 City local government, 93-99 Civil rights, 39-40 Classic economic liberal theory, 41-42 Classrooms with assistive technology, improving efficiency of, 250-252 Climate change, 64-65 Collaboration, 180 Collaborative learning, 23-24 Communication, 180 channels, 29-30 disabilities, 211 Communicative competencies, 28-31 Community resource persons (CRPs), 175 Competency-based education, 23-24 Complexity, 80-81 Comprehensive teaching strategies, 236 Computer-assisted tools, 128 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945), 89-90 Constructive Alignment model, 21 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 159 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 158-159 Conversations, feedback and recognition (CFR), 225 Core educational subjects, 179 COVID-19, 18-19, 118-119, 123-124 crisis, 7-8 inclusive learning for students with special needs during, 108-110 learning experiences during, 114-116 learning experiences of KU

This chapter provides information, tips, and techniques to ensure special educators have appropriate understanding of the purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and their role in developing individualized education programs (IEPs) that ensure students with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and make progress toward appropriately ambitious goals. After reading, educators will (1) better understand the history and purpose of the IDEA to guarantee civil rights for individuals with disabilities; (2) understand the procedural, substantive, and implementation requirements to ensure students with disabilities have access to FAPE; and (3) learn strategies for developing IEPs that address the IDEA FAPE requirements.

Interventions for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders in Inclusive School Settings

Middle school students classified with Emotional Disturbance in two levels of least restrictive environments (LRE) - self-contained classes (SCC) and a self-contained school (SCS) - were compared at the beginning and the end of a school year, using demographics, IQ and achievement testing, a teacher checklist for DSM-IV psychopathology, and standard measures of school functioning. At baseline the SCS students were significantly lower in both IQ and achievement than the SCC group and were significantly higher in the occurrence of externalizing psychopathology. Overall, reading achievement and oppositional-defiant symptoms were the baseline variables that best separated these two groups. Longitudinally, SCC students functioned significantly better than the SCS students over one school year. However, while the SCC levels of psychopathology generally worsened, the SCS group improved overall, with significant changes in the oppositional defiant and generalized anxiety symptom categories. Consequently, students in these two LREs were different both academically and behaviorally, at both baseline and longitudinally, with implications to improve their education and treatment.