Special Education Least Restrictive Environment PPT. - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

1. Special Education:
Least Restrictive Environment
Promoting School Success for
your Child with a Disability
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2. Today you will learn
more abouT:
• What the law says about the least
restrictive
environment (LRE);
• The PJ Settlement Agreement;
• Supplementary aids and services; and
• How to address fears parents have
about including students with
disabilities in general education
classrooms.

3. Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA 04)
• 1975- Education of All Handicapped Children
Act
• Reauthorized every five years
• Provides for a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) for students with disabilities
• Last reauthorized in 2004

4. no Child lefT behind (nClb)
*Signed into law January 2002
*Improve outcomes for All Children
*Close the achievement gap between children
with or without disabilities
*Emphasis on reading and using approaches that
have been proven to be effective
*Ensure that teachers are highly qualified

5. IndIvIdualIzed
educatIon Program –
(IeP )
The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 200
aligns IDEA closely to the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), helping to ensure
equity, accountability and excellence in education for
children with disabilities.
Note that IDEA 2004 is in effect as of July 1, 2005, with
the exception of the Highly Qualified provision, which has
been in effect since the law's signing on December 3,
2004.
On August 14, 2006, the official copy of the final Part B
regulations of the IDEA 2004 was published in the
Federal Register.

6. PlannIng before
Placement
The next slide will give you the child's placement
(where the IEP will be carried out) and must be
decided. The placement decision is made by a group
of people, including the parents and others who know
about the child, what the evaluation results mean, and
what types of placements are appropriate. In some
states, the IEP team serves as the group making the
placement decision. In other states, this decision may
be made by another group of people. In all cases, the
parents have the right to be members of the group that
decides the educational placement of the child.

7. Parent Student
Attend &
Participate –
when ready
Self-advocate
Attend Share
information
Share visions
& priorities Communicate
to resolve
Ask
differences
questions
Acknowledge
differences
Observe the
child
Review/monitor
progress
Commit resources
Follow procedural safeguards
Roles and
School
Deliver services
responsibiliti
es

8. PlaCemenT in The leasT
resTriCTive environmenT-
(lre)
* The placement of students with disabilities ages 3
through 21 in appropriate settings has been an integral
part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) since its enactment. Three basic principles
are included in the federal mandates. These are:
• Placement is based on the student 's individualized
education program;
• Placement is in the least restrictive environment; and
• A continuum of alternative placement options is
available to all students with disabilities.

9. factorS:
• First Factor requires that consideration be given to a comparison of the
benefits in the regular class and the benefits in the special class. In Daniel
R. v. El Paso Independent School District , the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that the appropriateness of
placement in the regular classroom is not dependent on the student's ability
to learn the same things that other students learn in the regular classroom.
The benefit from social interaction of the student with nondisabled peers is a
legitimate benefit that can be derived from placement in the regular
classroom.
• Second factor requires that consideration be given to the potentially
beneficial or harmful effects that placement in the regular classroom may
have on the student with educational disabilities and the other children in the
class. Two examples of the many beneficial social and academic effects that
may accrue to a student with disabilities include positive peer models and
high expectations for achievement. The potentially beneficial effects on the
other children in the class are fostered as they learn to understand and
accept the individual differences of their peers. Harmful effects may include
the disruptive behavior of a student with disabilities if the disruptiveness is
severe enough to significantly impair the education of other students. The
school district must demonstrate that full consideration has been given to the
complete range of supplementary aids and services that could be provided to
the student to deal with the problem behaviors.

10. Placement oPtIonS
Include:
• a regular classroom;
• a regular classroom with modifications and/or
supplemental aids and services;
• a resource room for special education instruction
with instruction in a regular classroom;
• a classroom for children with disabilities located
in a regular school;
• day or residential special schools, where many
or all students may have disabilities; and
• a home, hospital, or institution based program

11. The PJ Settlement Agreement
P.J., et al v. State of Connecticut, Board of
Education, et al. was filed in 1991 on behalf of five
school-age children with mental retardation and their
families. The case was certified as a class action lawsuit
on December 13, 1993. The court defined the class as
“all mentally retarded school-aged children in
Connecticut who have been identified as needing special
education and who. . . are not educated in regular
classrooms” The Settlement Agreement specifically
includes children with the label “Intellectual Disability.”
On May 22, 2002, a Settlement Agreement was
approved and 5 goals and outcomes were determined.

12. The Five Goals of the PJ
Settlement Agreement
• An increase in the percent of students with mental
retardation/intellectual disability who are placed in
regular classes.
• A reduction in the disparate identification of students with
MR/ID by racial, ethnic or gender group.
• An increase in the percent of the school day that
students with MR/ID spend with non-disabled students.
• An increase in the percent of students who attend their
“home school.”
• An increase in the percent of students with MR/ID who
participate in school-sponsored extracurricular activities
with non-disabled peers.

13. How Do You Address the Fears of Parents with
Disabilities in a Regular Classroom:
• http://www.klschools.org/www/klsd/site/hosting/public_h
The above link will give you a “Special Education Parent
Handbook”, which is a (47 page) very interesting
publication for a reference guide.
* http://www.coping.org/specialneeds/normaliz.htm
Tools for Parents of Children with Disabilities and Special Needs

14. References
• http://www.coping.org/specialneeds/normaliz.htm
• http://www.klschools.org/www/klsd/site/hosting/public_html/SPED/S
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA)
• No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
• http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.index.htm
• http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/idea.lre.fape.htm

15. APPENDEX
Some text books that might be of some help or
references to both the parent and schools are as
follows:

16. Case Studies
Case law:
• Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
First decision in a special education case by the U. S. Supreme Court; defined "free
appropriate public education" in the least restrictive environment.
Carter v. Florence County, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit While
arguing that four months a year of progress in reading was appropriate, the district
also argued that because Trident Academy was not on the State's "approved" list,
Shannon's parents should not be reimbursed for the placement. The Court discusses
the mainstreaming policy and "least restrictive environment". This ruling created a
"split" among circuits that opened the door to an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court in
Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter.
• Hartmann v. Loudoun County, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, inclusion
and LRE for child with autism (1997).
L.B. and J.B. ex rel. K.B. v. Nebo UT School District, U. S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit. Parents of child with autism reimbursed for ABA therapy and private
preschool which was LRE; also impartiality of hearing officer. (August 2004)
T. R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ) (3rd Cir. 2000) Clarifies requirement to provide a
"free appropriate education (FAPE)" in the "least restrictive environment, meaningful
benefit, continuum of placements.
Zachary Deal v. Hamilton Dept of Educ (TN Due Process Decision Aug 2001)
Administrative law judge issues 45 page decision after a 27-day due process hearing;
finds procedural safeguards and LRE violations; substantive violations ; discusses credibility
problems with school witnesses re: closed minds, evasiveness.

17. Conclusion
This was a very interesting topic to do my PowerPoint Presentation
on and I found a lot of information on the subject matter. I could go
on and on because there is so much to learn and tell. I had the
opportunity to teach as a Special Education Associate in Des
Moines, Iowa many years ago and I learned a lot from that
experience. Now that I teach in the Aldine ISD district, I am getting
hands on experience as a teacher on some of the issues and laws
that are associated with Special Education Least Restrictive
Environment. I have several students on my class roster that I deal
with it every day. And I am learning new things everyday as well.
To me, “the least restrictive environment is the one that, to the
greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children
together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the
disabled child would attend if the child were not disabled."