Full Inclusion vs. LRE (Least Restrictive Environment)
When discussing special education and the needs of individuals who need special education, there is a large controversy surrounding the topic of full inclusion and the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students. The debate has its origins in the landmark Supreme Court case, “Brown v. Board of Educations,” where the concept of “separate, but equal,” from “Plessy v. Ferguson” was overruled. Since Chief Justice Earl Warren’s court ruling in 1954, stating that, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” advocates of education have fought for as equal an education possible for all students, special and general education students alike. The concepts of full inclusion and the least restrictive environment will be discussed along with how they impact our educational systems.
IDEA and Least Restrictive Environment
In 2004, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The act was designed to “A) ensure that all children with disabilities have... a free appropriate education... B) to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected, and C) to assist States, localities, educational services, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities.” (P.L. 108-446; Heward, 2009) IDEA has set the legal requirements surrounding special education; these standards will be used as the final word when considering the full inclusion and least restrictive environment for students with disabilities.
IDEA mandates that every student with disabilities is educated in their least restrictive environment; the law states:
“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 not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the sure of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (P.L. 108-446, Sec. 612 (a)(5)(A))” (Heward, 2009)
This law draws some very clear lines about what a “least restrictive environment” is. First, all students, public or privately educated, are given the best education possible. Second, students with disabilities should be placed in a general education classroom first before any other placement. Finally, only when the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that their needs cannot be satisfactorily met in a general education classroom does the student receive placement outside a general education classroom. The language of IDEA is vague at times making statements like, “to the maximum extent appropriate” and “cannot be achieved satisfactorily,” highly subjective. This subjectivity is essential however, because a least restrictive environment is an individualized concept. With the focus on individualization, the need for assessment, evidence, research-based practices, and careful consideration of the student’s needs are paramount. It is recognized that the least restrictive environment for an individual is not always a general education classroom, but somewhere on a continuum of alternative placement.
IDEA mandates that every student with disabilities is educated in their least restrictive environment; the law states:
“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 not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the sure of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (P.L. 108-446, Sec. 612 (a)(5)(A))” (Heward, 2009)
This law draws some very clear lines about what a “least restrictive environment” is. First, all students, public or privately educated, are given the best education possible. Second, students with disabilities should be placed in a general education classroom first before any other placement. Finally, only when the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that their needs cannot be satisfactorily met in a general education classroom does the student receive placement outside a general education classroom. The language of IDEA is vague at times making statements like, “to the maximum extent appropriate” and “cannot be achieved satisfactorily,” highly subjective. This subjectivity is essential however, because a least restrictive environment is an individualized concept. With the focus on individualization, the need for assessment, evidence, research-based practices, and careful consideration of the student’s needs are paramount. It is recognized that the least restrictive environment for an individual is not always a general education classroom, but somewhere on a continuum of alternative placement.
Continuum of Placement
Because it is a part of providing the least restrictive environment for a student, IDEA requires a range of placement for the benefit of a student’s individualized education. The continuum of placement ranges from the “general education classroom” to “homebound or hospital” where the majority of students are in and closer to the general education classroom. As the continuum moves away from general education the placement becomes more restrictive; the objective of IDEA is to provide the least restrictive placement as possible. The continuum of placement is as follows:
It is important to note several things about the continuum of services. First, as described under IDEA, all students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). This mean that the student’s education must be paid at the public’s expense. All related expenses on the continuum would fall under the protection of FAPE. Second, all students, regardless of their LRE placements on the continuum, are entitled to an education. The educational environments described in the continuum of placement are listed as a “prescribed program” or as “special education and related services.” Students with disabilities, at any point on the continuum, receive an education. Finally, regular public schools can provide the first five placements within their buildings.
- General education classroom: students receive a prescribed program under the direction of the general education teacher.
- General education classroom with consultation: students receive prescribed program from a general education teacher, who is supported by ongoing consultation from the special educator(s).
- General education classroom with supplementary instruction and services: students receive a prescribed program under the direction of the general education teacher and also receives instruction and related services within the general education classroom from the special educator and/or a paraeducator.
- Resource room: student in the general education classroom the majority of the school day but goes to the special education resource room for specialized instruction for part of each school day.
- Separate classroom: students attend a special class for most of or all of the school day and receives special education related services under the direction of a special education teacher.
- Separate school: students receive special education and related services under the direction of a specially trained staff in a specially designed facility.
- Residential school: students receive special education and related services from trained staff in a residential facility in which children receive care or services 24 hours a day.
- Homebound or hospital: student receives special education and related services at home in a hospital program. (Heward, 2009)
It is important to note several things about the continuum of services. First, as described under IDEA, all students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). This mean that the student’s education must be paid at the public’s expense. All related expenses on the continuum would fall under the protection of FAPE. Second, all students, regardless of their LRE placements on the continuum, are entitled to an education. The educational environments described in the continuum of placement are listed as a “prescribed program” or as “special education and related services.” Students with disabilities, at any point on the continuum, receive an education. Finally, regular public schools can provide the first five placements within their buildings.
Least Restrictive Environment vs. Full Inclusion
When determining the LRE for a student with a disability, there is a set sequence of steps to follow. The school first determines if a student has a disability and is eligible for a special education. This can be done through a number of research-based approaches by special education experts. Second, the student’s individual education program (IEP) team determines the student’s individual needs and develops an IEP specifying the special education services to meet the student needs. Finally, the student is placed in the LRE that provides an “appropriate education” where the student can make “satisfactory educational progress.” (Heward, 2009)
An opposing side to IDEA’s least restrictive environment is the concept of “inclusion.” The inclusive perspective wants a student with disabilities to be educated in a general education classroom while a least restrictive environment is as close to general education as possible while providing the appropriate education where a student will make appropriate educational progress. For many students LRE and inclusion is the same thing, but they are not synonymous. There are many people on each side of the debate, arguing for inclusion or for the LRE model.
S.J. Taylor (2005) describes a list of reasons why the full inclusion model is preferential over the LRE model:
1. Legitimizes restrictive environments
2. Confuses segregation and integration with intensity of service
3. Is based on a readiness model
4. Supports the primacy of professional decision making
5. Sanctions infringements on people’s rights
6. Implies that people must move as they develop and change
7. Directs attention to physical settings rather than to the services and supports people need (Taylor, 2005; Heward, 2009)
The points Taylors makes are valid, primarily focusing on the needs and rights of the individual, the responsibilities and capabilities of schools, and the connection between educational setting and its effectiveness to educate. Many of the proponents of inclusion center their arguments on social justice. The National Center for Inclusive Education (NCIE) states that:
“When school districts maintain segregated classrooms and separate schools for students with disabilities, such as children on the autism spectrum, this is not an educational necessity but instead reflects outdated and exclusionary attitudes. How children are treated in the schools often mirrors how they will be treated in later life. As with other minorities, segregated school placements lead to a segregated society, whereas inclusion in the earliest years promotes increased opportunity and greater understanding of differences for all involved. A society that separates its children is likely to maintain those separations indefinitely, reinforcing attitudinal barriers to inclusion in all aspects of life.” (NCIE, 2011)
This perspective harkens back to the original concept Brown v. Board clarified, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The social implications of separating students with disabilities from general education classrooms has a long-term and profound impact on every student; full inclusion in the classroom means full inclusion later in life.
Contrasting, Naomi Zigmond states that the “best place” for a student’s education is not what special education is; she states,
“The bedrock of special education is instruction focused on individual needs. The very concept of “one best place” contradicts this commitment to individualization.- Special educators understand about individual differences- they fought hard for the legal requirement of the Individual Education Program for children with disabilities, to permit formulation of unique programs of instruction to meet unique individual needs... I can say with come certainty that place is not what makes special education “special” or effective. Effective teaching strategies and an individualized approach are more critical ingredients in special education, and neither of these associated solely with one particular environment.” (Zigmond, 2003; Heward 2009)
The debate between the LRE model and full inclusion continues on. Both sides share an intense interest for the wellbeing of students with disabilities. The current regulations set under IDEA dictates that all students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate public education where they have the rights to an individual education program, and a least restrictive environment.
An opposing side to IDEA’s least restrictive environment is the concept of “inclusion.” The inclusive perspective wants a student with disabilities to be educated in a general education classroom while a least restrictive environment is as close to general education as possible while providing the appropriate education where a student will make appropriate educational progress. For many students LRE and inclusion is the same thing, but they are not synonymous. There are many people on each side of the debate, arguing for inclusion or for the LRE model.
S.J. Taylor (2005) describes a list of reasons why the full inclusion model is preferential over the LRE model:
1. Legitimizes restrictive environments
2. Confuses segregation and integration with intensity of service
3. Is based on a readiness model
4. Supports the primacy of professional decision making
5. Sanctions infringements on people’s rights
6. Implies that people must move as they develop and change
7. Directs attention to physical settings rather than to the services and supports people need (Taylor, 2005; Heward, 2009)
The points Taylors makes are valid, primarily focusing on the needs and rights of the individual, the responsibilities and capabilities of schools, and the connection between educational setting and its effectiveness to educate. Many of the proponents of inclusion center their arguments on social justice. The National Center for Inclusive Education (NCIE) states that:
“When school districts maintain segregated classrooms and separate schools for students with disabilities, such as children on the autism spectrum, this is not an educational necessity but instead reflects outdated and exclusionary attitudes. How children are treated in the schools often mirrors how they will be treated in later life. As with other minorities, segregated school placements lead to a segregated society, whereas inclusion in the earliest years promotes increased opportunity and greater understanding of differences for all involved. A society that separates its children is likely to maintain those separations indefinitely, reinforcing attitudinal barriers to inclusion in all aspects of life.” (NCIE, 2011)
This perspective harkens back to the original concept Brown v. Board clarified, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The social implications of separating students with disabilities from general education classrooms has a long-term and profound impact on every student; full inclusion in the classroom means full inclusion later in life.
Contrasting, Naomi Zigmond states that the “best place” for a student’s education is not what special education is; she states,
“The bedrock of special education is instruction focused on individual needs. The very concept of “one best place” contradicts this commitment to individualization.- Special educators understand about individual differences- they fought hard for the legal requirement of the Individual Education Program for children with disabilities, to permit formulation of unique programs of instruction to meet unique individual needs... I can say with come certainty that place is not what makes special education “special” or effective. Effective teaching strategies and an individualized approach are more critical ingredients in special education, and neither of these associated solely with one particular environment.” (Zigmond, 2003; Heward 2009)
The debate between the LRE model and full inclusion continues on. Both sides share an intense interest for the wellbeing of students with disabilities. The current regulations set under IDEA dictates that all students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate public education where they have the rights to an individual education program, and a least restrictive environment.
My Thoughts on Full Inclusion vs. LRE
As a future teacher, I am for the LRE model. The current laws state that all students with disabilities have a right to a free and appropriate public education with an individual education program, and a least restrictive environment. The best setting, where the student will have an appropriate education and make satisfactory progress, may very well be in my classroom. Another student may be best suited in another environment on the continuum placement. So long as special educators, teachers, parents, administrators, IEP team members, and anyone else involved with a student’s education is compassionate and considerate of the student’s needs, then I believe that the best will be done for the student. To say outright that all students can be served in one setting or another, or in one model or another flies in the face of modern education. I would say though, students, when able, should have a greater say in their education and environmental placement. The current system seems to rarely take the student’s wants into account; I believe that during the IEP meeting, when placement is being discussed, a student should be able to have their voice heard.