Research and Report EDU219
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Eastern Gateway Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
219
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by MegaOxide6621
Research and Report
1
Research and Report EDU 219
Christie Cowan-Phillips January 30, 2022
Eastern Gateway Community College
Professor Daniel Wakefield
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS]
2
Research and Report
From the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was enacted in 1975 have
come many principles and standards. One of these is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
Hulett (2009) cited Rothstein (2000) who stated “One of the primary principles of the IDEA is
the concept of educating children with disabilities along with children who are not disable to the
maximum extent appropriate, ideally in the regular classroom” (p.107). This is the concept of
least restrictive environment. LRE has not always been defined in this way.
All though history there have been many court cases which have defined and shaped LRE into
what it is today. A lot of the LRE discussion seems to be about a specific place or physical
context like in a general education classroom (Rueda & Gallego, 2000).
Raines (1996) cited Turnbull (1993) who stated many quarters make up the principle of the least
restrictive environment, including mental health and correction policies (p.118).
Legal foundations: Students with Disabilities' Rights
Schools must offer a free adequate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities, as
mandated by IDEA. Furthermore, the legislation stipulates that the fullest extent implies that
children with impairments should be taught alongside children who are not handicapped (Yell,
1995). The statute mandates that children with disabilities, including those in public or private
institutions or other care facilities, [be] educated alongside children who are not disabled to the
greatest extent possible, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children
with disabilities from the regular educational environment [occur] only when the nature or
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS]
3
severity of the disability is severe enough. (p.390) This legislation makes it clear that services
[shall] be given in a normal educational setting to the greatest degree possible (Crockett, 2000).
There have been several court decisions involving the least restrictive environment and how it is
implemented. Hartman v. Loudoun County Board Of Education is one example of this. The
parents of the kid took this matter to court in 1997. Mark Hartman was an autistic eleven-year-
old youngster (Hartman v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 1997). Mark's parents filed the
lawsuit against the Loudoun County Board of Education because they believed their son was not
being schooled alongside non-handicapped classmates to the full degree that was possible.
Mark spent half of his kindergarten year in a special class for children with autism and the other
half in a standard class. It happened at Butterfield Elementary School in Lombard, Illinois. He
was put in a normal class full time with an aide and speech and occupational therapy in first
grade at the same school. Mark's family relocated to Loudoun County, Virginia, when he
completed first grade and enrolled him at Ashburn Elementary. He was put in a normal
classroom at the new school, as directed by his IEP. Due to instances of loud shrieking and other
disruptive behavior, he took a lot of time out of the classroom every day (Hartman v. Loudoun
County Board of Education). Officials at the school did all they could to ensure Mark's
participation in his individualized education program (IEP). Despite all efforts, Mark's IEP team
decided at the end of the year that he was not making academic progress in the normal
classroom. As a result, in May 1994, the case conference committee recommended that he be
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS]
4
placed in a Leesburg Elementary class particularly created for children with autism (Hartman v.
Loudoun County Board of Education).
The matter was originally brought to the district court, where the judge found in favor of
Hartman. According to the court, Mark was not sufficiently included in the mainstream by the
educational system. After careful deliberation, the 4th Circuit Court reversed the district court's
decision and applied the following principles to LRE... "(1). Regular education courses will not
give educational advantage; (2) a more restricted placement considerably exceeds the benefits of
mainstreaming; and (3) the kid jeopardizes the education of other children in the classroom
owing to disruptive conduct" (Hulett, 2009, p.117). If the type and severity of the condition
suggest that the child would almost certainly fail in the normal classroom and that the restricted
setting will enable the kid to obtain an acceptable education, then the alternative placement
should be chosen (Thomas & Rapport, 1998). The Fourth Circuit determined that academic
demands are paramount, and that the social advantages of mainstreaming are secondary. The matter of Roncker v. Walter was also brought before the court (1983). The parents of Neil
Roncker, who was nine years old at the time, a kid with a moderate level of mental impairment
They took it to court because they believed their kid had been put incorrectly. The parents
claimed that the district had violated FAPE and LRE by not allowing their kid to attend school
with his non-disabled classmates. His IEP team supports this placement because they found that
he would benefit from being put with other kids who have difficulties. The lower court in the
case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, "ruled in favor of the
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS]
5
school district, and the parents appealed" (Roncker v. Walter, 1983). The case was reviewed by
the Sixth Circuit Court, which reversed the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of the
parents. The courts ruled that the school district had failed to comply with the LRE requirement
and the mainstreaming standards (Hulett, 2009). As a result of this decision, the Roncker
probability test was created. The two-part exam looks at the following: (1) Is it conceivable for the services supplied in a segregated placement to be reasonably offered
in an integrated placement? (2) If you answered no to question 1, you should be placed in a more
restricted environment. If you answered yes, the separated placement is not the LRE and is thus
unsuitable (p. 114).
The third court case is Oberti V. Clementon 1993. This is the first occasion in which IDEA's
"mainstreaming" approach to the idea of "inclusion" is abandoned. Clearly, inclusion is a result
of judicial decision rather than legislative action. Rafael Oberti, an autistic kid who was
disruptive in his usual classroom placement, was moved to a more restricted placement by the
school. According to the court, "Inclusion is a 'right,' not a privilege reserved for a small group of
people. Success in special schools and special courses does not imply effective integration into
society, which is one of the IDEA's stated aims." Keep in mind that the term "inclusion" does not
present in the IDEA; it was added by a court.
Although the cases Hartman v. Loudoun County Board of Education, Roncker v. Walter, and
Oberti v. Clementon are not the only ones that have helped develop LRE into what it is today,
they are nonetheless essential ones for portraying LRE. LRE assists not just the kid by ensuring
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS]
6
that they get the best suitable education possible, but it also helps the child's parents. LRE places
the kid in the correct setting, ensuring that they get the finest form of education possible, as well
as additional support if necessary. The LRE exists to ensure that the kid receives the greatest
educational advantages possible, and that the parents are confident that their child is obtaining
the highest educational benefits possible. Conclusion
The premise of LRE has altered multiple times during the course of its existence, as has been
detailed throughout this work. This may be shown in a number of court cases and by looking at
IDEA. Not only does LRE imply that the kid receives an education in a broad classroom, but it
also implies that the child receives an education tailored to his or her specific requirements to the
greatest degree possible. Hartman v. Loudoun County Board of Education (1997), Roncker v.
Walter (1983), and Oberti v. Clementon (1993) all progressed and made significant progress in
the establishment of the LRE concept. They've made it feasible for LRE to collaborate with each
and every kid. When dealing with a kid who has a handicap, LRE has shown to be a useful tool
for educational systems. For kids with disabilities, having the least restrictive environment is
critical because it allows them to get the most suitable education possible.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS]
7
References
Crockett, J.B. (2000). Viable alternatives for students with disabilities: Exploring the origins and
interpretations of LRE. Exceptionally,8(1),43‐60; Retrieved January 30, 2022from the EBSCO
host research database.
Hartman v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 118F.3d.996 (4thCir.1997)
Hulett,K.E. (2009). Legal aspects of special education (1sted.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education,Inc.
Raines,J.C.(1996). Appropriate versus least restrictive: Educational policies and students with
disabilities. Social Work in Education,18(2),113‐127. Retrieved January 30, 2022, from the
EBSCO host research database.
Roncker v. Walter,700F.2d.1058(Cir.1983)
Rueda,R., Gallego,M.A. & Moll, L.C. (2000). Least restrictive environment: Place or context?
Remedial & Special Education, 21(2),70‐78. Retrieved January 20, 2022, From the EBSCO host
research database.
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS]
8
Thomas, S.B.,Rapport,M.J.K., (1998). Least restrictive environment: Understanding the direction
of the courts. The Journal of Special Education,32(2),66‐78. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from
EBSCO host research database.
Yell, M.L. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion, and students with disablilities: A
legal analysis. Journal of Special Education, 28(4),389‐404.Retrieved January 30, 2022, from the
EBSCO host research database.