The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Clarifying the Relationship Between Free Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Mitchell Louis Yell, M. Renee Bradley
{"title":"The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Clarifying the Relationship Between Free Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment","authors":"Mitchell Louis Yell, M. Renee Bradley","doi":"10.1177/00222194241305352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2025, the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) will have been the primary law driving the field of special education for 50 years. A contentious area of disagreement has been the relationship between two primary mandates of the law: the obligation of schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible students with disabilities and the obligation to place these students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) appropriate to each student’s individual needs. The conflict over LRE can be traced throughout the history of IDEA, in debates referenced as “mainstreaming,” “regular education initiative,” “inclusion,” and “full inclusion.” In this case, we draw on (a) Congressional intent as shown in the writings of a co-sponsor of the law, (b) the language of the law and regulations, (c) special education rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and other U.S. Courts of Appeals addressing FAPE and LRE, and (d) policy guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. We argue that there is no basis for believing that FAPE and LRE are in conflict. Rather, the FAPE requirement of the IDEA is the primary obligation of school districts, and it sets the parameters for determining the LRE. To believe otherwise represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. We describe how for students eligible under the category of learning disabilities, this perceived conflict has been especially challenging. Historically, the IDEA has made a distinction between high-incidence disabilities, those that occur more frequently, and low-incidence disabilities, those that occur less frequently. At some point, these distinctions morphed into a belief that high-incidence disabilities required less-intensive interventions and were more suited to regular class placement than those students with low-incidence disabilities. This distinction is incorrect. For each student identified as eligible for special education services, the determination of LRE should be an individualized decision based on student needs and where those needs can be best met. This discussion is a critical one for students with learning disabilities and all students with disabilities who may require intensive individualized supports, regardless of prior conceptions of low- and high-disability categories.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241305352","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2025, the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) will have been the primary law driving the field of special education for 50 years. A contentious area of disagreement has been the relationship between two primary mandates of the law: the obligation of schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible students with disabilities and the obligation to place these students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) appropriate to each student’s individual needs. The conflict over LRE can be traced throughout the history of IDEA, in debates referenced as “mainstreaming,” “regular education initiative,” “inclusion,” and “full inclusion.” In this case, we draw on (a) Congressional intent as shown in the writings of a co-sponsor of the law, (b) the language of the law and regulations, (c) special education rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and other U.S. Courts of Appeals addressing FAPE and LRE, and (d) policy guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. We argue that there is no basis for believing that FAPE and LRE are in conflict. Rather, the FAPE requirement of the IDEA is the primary obligation of school districts, and it sets the parameters for determining the LRE. To believe otherwise represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. We describe how for students eligible under the category of learning disabilities, this perceived conflict has been especially challenging. Historically, the IDEA has made a distinction between high-incidence disabilities, those that occur more frequently, and low-incidence disabilities, those that occur less frequently. At some point, these distinctions morphed into a belief that high-incidence disabilities required less-intensive interventions and were more suited to regular class placement than those students with low-incidence disabilities. This distinction is incorrect. For each student identified as eligible for special education services, the determination of LRE should be an individualized decision based on student needs and where those needs can be best met. This discussion is a critical one for students with learning disabilities and all students with disabilities who may require intensive individualized supports, regardless of prior conceptions of low- and high-disability categories.
2025 年,《残障人士教育法》(IDEA)将成为推动特殊教育领域发展 50 年的主要法律。该法的两个主要任务之间的关系一直存在争议:一是学校有义务为符合条件的残疾学生提供免费的适当的公共教育(FAPE),二是有义务将这些学生安置在适合每个学生个人需求的限制性最小的环境(LRE)中。关于 LRE 的冲突可以追溯到整个 IDEA 的历史,在辩论中被称为 "主流化"、"常规教育倡议"、"全纳 "和 "全纳"。在本案中,我们借鉴了:(a) 该法共同提案人的著作中显示的国会意图;(b) 法律和法规的措辞;(c) 美国最高法院和其他美国上诉法院关于 FAPE 和 LRE 的特殊教育裁决;(d) 美国教育部的政策指导。我们认为,没有理由认为 FAPE 和 LRE 相冲突。相反,IDEA 的 FAPE 要求是学区的首要义务,它为确定 LRE 设定了参数。否则就是对法律的根本误解。我们描述了对于符合学习障碍类别的学生而言,这种被认为的冲突是如何具有挑战性的。从历史上看,IDEA 对高发残疾和低发残疾进行了区分,前者是指发生频率较高的残疾,后者是指发生频率较低的残疾。在某些时候,这些区别演变成了一种信念,即高发残疾需要的干预强度较低,与低发残疾学生相比,更适合常规班级安置。这种区分是不正确的。对于每一个被认定有资格接受特殊教育服务的学生而言,确定 LRE 应该是一个基于学生需求和最能满足这些需求的地方的个性化决定。对于有学习障碍的学生和所有可能需要强化个性化支持的残疾学生来说,无论以前对低残疾和高残疾类别的概念如何,这一讨论都是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信