1 / 24

LRE History & Online Placement

LRE History & Online Placement. Sharon M. Goldrup University of Nevada, Reno. Outline. What is the history, origins and requirements of the least restrictive environment (LRE ) mandate found in IDEA 2004? Should schools be evaluating online education as an available placement option?

delfina
Télécharger la présentation

LRE History & Online Placement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LRE History & Online Placement Sharon M. Goldrup University of Nevada, Reno

  2. Outline • What is the history, origins and requirements of the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate found in IDEA 2004? Should schools be evaluating online education as an available placement option? • Timeline of historical events • Combintaion of LRE, FAPE & IDEA • Online education overview • LRE online placement considerations

  3. Timeline of Historical Events Brown v. Board of Education found that segregated schooling was unconstitutional Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, equal opportunity within public schools The Cascade Model of Special Education Services introduced by Deno P.L 94-142 Education for All Handicapped Children Act Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) First K-12 online education program 1954 1970 1972 1975 1994 1990 1993 1971 1982 1974 1962 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to prevent the denial of public education Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter . First combined FAPE & LRE Rowley v. Board of Education first FAPE case before the U.S Supreme court P.L. 93-380, least restrictive alternative first signed into law Reynolds introduced the “continuum” of classroom placements

  4. Cascade Model of Special Education In Deno’s model, the educational placement functions within the general education model and was designed to make “whatever different-from-the-mainstream setting is required” for critical learning of each individual student (Deno, 1970, pg .235). Deno’s model made it clear that if a student with disabilities was not placed in the general education classroom to start, then the instruction and LRE plan was to prepare students to transition into the general education classroom (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999). However, Deno’s first model included a section for children that were deemed “uneducable,” while the final LRE model removed this option contained in the bottom triangle (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999). The concept of cascade of services was seen as progressive when it was first presented (Gartner and Lipsky, 1989). It is this progressive idea of moving students based on the levels of restrictiveness, which is contained in Demo’s models, that becomes the basis of LRE found in today’s state and federal laws (Peterson, Zabel, Smith & White, 1983).

  5. Current LRE Model

  6. LRE, FAPE and IDEA • U.S Department of Education, LRE is a requirement that students with disabilities be educated in the regular classroom, with appropriate aids and supports, to the maximum extent appropriate (U.S Department of Education, 2004; IDEA, 2004). Part B of IDEA section 300.114 further defines LRE as requiring that state agencies (LEA) meet the requirements that students with disabilities are educated with their non-disabled peers and can only be removed if the severity of the disability, even with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be “achieved satisfactorily” (IDEA, 2004) Part B of IDEA has a section titled “Continuum of Alternative Placements” which addresses that each LEA ensures that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities to include supplementary services that can be provided in conjunction with regular class placements (IDEA, 2004).

  7. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Landmark Court Cases & Legislation Mills v. Board of Education (1972)- which found that children should be given a “free and suitable” public education. PL 93-380 (1974) & 94-142 (1975) - requirement that public schools provide a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities at no cost to the parents Rowley v. Board of Education (1982)-defined the requirements of FAPE as “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. Such instruction and services must be provided at public expense, must meet the State’s educational standards, must approximate the grade levels used in the State’s regular education, and must comport with the child’s IEP” (Wright & Wright, 2007, p 345). Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter (1993)- court found that parents’ rights to FAPE outweighed the school’s requirement to LRE, as the least restrictive requirement was never intended to apply to parental placements but only to school placements (Wright & Wright, 2007).

  8. FAPE, LRE & IDEA • The courts found that Individuals with Disabilities Education Act intertwined FAPE and LRE requirements and protected the rights of students to not only receive an education equal to their peers but also that the education take place with their peers. This combined requirement of a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment opened the door for new educational opportunities, one of which is the option of an online education.

  9. Combined Protections-LRE, FAPE & IDEA FAPE-Free and appropriate education LRE-General education classroom, with supports/aids IDEA (1990, 1997) IDEIA 2004

  10. Virtual Education • What is it? • Separation of teacher/student provided via internet • Types • -based on operation (state/district/for-profit) • Located • Across the United states (31 full/48 with online learning opportunities) • Enrollment numbers • Vary based on reports, and types of programs (300k to over 1 million)

  11. Special Education & Virtual Schools • What we know • Special education students are enrolling (Spitler, Repetto & Cavanaugh, 2013) • School of choice for at-risk students (Hassel & Terrel, 2004; Rhim & Kowal, 2008) • What we don’t know • Exact numbers (Repetto et al., 2010) • Exact disability categories (Basham, et al. 2016) • Overall concerns • Lack of comprehensive data reporting system (Picciano & Seaman, 2007; Repetto et al., 2010) • Lack of specific federal laws (Muller, 2009; Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2016).

  12. Online Education Possibilities • Online learning has been described as an inclusive learning environment that allows more access to general education curriculum for students with disabilities (Repetto et al. 2013; Ferdig & Kennedy, 2014). • Potential benefits can be tailored to each individual student, including flexible school time, enhanced educational opportunities, more access to resources (Cavanaugh et al. 2004), and the ability to facilitate individual learning pace to either catch up or work ahead (Hasler-Waters, Barbour, & Menchaca, 2014). • Online school options allow students that may have children of their own or students that are required to work full time the ability to continue learning at their own pace and during non-standard school hours (Beck, Eagalite, & Maranto, 2014). • Additionally, the digital environment may provide a more equitable environment for meeting the needs of all learners (Basham et al., 2015) by creating a more student-centered and individualized educational model (Beck at al. 2014).

  13. Online Education & FAPE • While no federal laws specifically address special education in virtual schools, OSEP does not provide any exceptions to federal and state laws, including IDEA, for online schools (Muller, 2009; Basham et al.,2015). • OSEP requires that online schools follow IDEA and, therefore, the requirements of FAPE and LRE. This requirement not only questions if FAPE and LRE are being adequately addressed for students attending virtual schools but also raises the question of whether a LEA’s lack of providing online learning opportunities is a possible denial of FAPE (Basham et al., 2015). • Burdette, Greer and Woods (2013) suggested that online learning may “become a civil rights issue that will require federal guidance and safeguards to ensure free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, and that students with disabilities receive all the educational benefits afforded by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner” (p.70).

  14. Online Education Opportunities • Online education and the opportunities it could provide to address the poor academic outcomes, high dropout rates, low self-esteem and behavioral concerns seen for students with disabilities in traditional school settings (Beck et al, 2014) are the basis for including online educational placement considerations in the LRE within a student’s IEP. • The dropout rate for students with a disability is approximately twice that of general education students (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996), with 20% of students receiving services under IDEA, Part B dropping out during the 2011-12 school year (Houtenville, Brucker & Lauer, 2016).

  15. Reasons student leave traditional school • Students with disabilities often leave school and drop out for a variety of reasons. • Being placed in grade levels while being older than their peer group • An overall general dislike of school • Reoccurring discipline problems • Belief that school is not preparing them for the future • Bullying and the perceived lack of appropriate school response (Beck et al, 2014; Dunn, Chambers, and Rabren 2004; Lipscomb et al., 2017; Repetto et al.,2010; Spitler, Repetto and Cavanaugh, 2013)

  16. Using Online LRE within the IEP Process Online LRE

  17. IEP Placement Discussion If virtual education was added to the placement discussion, students could be removed from the traditional school and placed into an online program, which may remove the negative school experiences affecting their behavior and removing social barriers, but they are still placed in full-time general education classrooms virtually, therefore meeting the requirements of LRE and FAPE. • Credit recovery classes, would remedy the stigma of being a different age then their peers • Allow students with disabilities to catch up academically to their peers but would remove the age difference as a factor for students that leave school without graduating. • Unlike in a traditional school setting where students can be seen attending particular classes, or receiving special education services, the very nature of online experiences allows for some anonymity amongst their peers. Unless a student self-discloses his/her age or his/her disability, other students attending the same virtual program would be unaware of the student’s specific age or disability. In this situation, virtual education meets the requirements of LRE to provide the most appropriate setting to meet the student’s individual needs while keeping him/ her with her typical aged peers.

  18. Conclusion • If the IEP team is required to develop an appropriate and individual plan that is designed to be beneficial to the student (Zirkel, 2015), then virtual education options must be addressed. • Online education could be seen for many students as the least restrictive environment that allows them to be with their nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible. • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, protects the rights of students to not only receive an education equal to their peers but also that the education take place with their peers. • If, therefore, the intended purpose of IDEA and LRE is to promote an equal educational opportunity for students with disabilities, then virtual education and the possibilities it can provide require that online education become a placement discussion within IEP meetings.

  19. References • Basham, J.D., Carter, R. A., Rice, M. F., Ortiz. K (2016). Emerging state policy in online special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership 29(2), 70-78. • Basham, J.D., Stahl, W., Ortiz, K.R., Rice, M.F., & Smith, S.J. (2015). Equity matters: Digital & online learning for students with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities. • Beck, D.E., Eagalite, A., & Maranto, R. (2014). What they choose and how it goes: Comparing • special education and general education cyber student perceptions. Computers and • Education 76, 70-79. • Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 399-413. • Burdette, P. J., Greer, D., & Woods, K. L. (2013). K-12 online learning and students with disabilities: Perspectives from state special education directors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(3), 1-7.

  20. References • Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (2016). Equity matters: Digital & online learning for students with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Author.  • Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. • Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37(3), 229-237. doi:10.1177/001440297003700306 • Dunn, C., Chambers, D., & Rabren, K. (2004). Variables affecting students’ decisions to drop out of school. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 314–323. • Ferdig, R. E., & Kennedy, K. (2014). Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning. ETC Press. • Gartner, A., & Lipsky,D.K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and Economy.

  21. References • Hasler-Waters, L., Barbour, M.-K., & Menchaca, M.-P. (2014). The nature of online charter schools: Evolution and emerging concerns. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (4), 379–389. • Hassell, B. C., & Terrell, M. G. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the choice provisions of the no child left behind act? Virtual school report. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title1/part_a/archive/how_can_virtual_schools.pdf • Houtenville, A. J., Brucker, D. L., & Lauer, E. A. (2016). 2015 Annual disability statistics compendium. Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire. • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). • Lipscomb, S., Haimson, J., Liu, A.Y., Burghardt, J., Johnson, D.R., & Thurlow, M.L. (2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 2: Comparisons across disability groups: Full report (NCEE 2017-4018). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174016/

  22. References • Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866, (D.D.C. 1972). • Molnar, A., Miron, G., Gulosino, C., Shank, C., Davidson, C., Barbour, M.K., Huerta, L., Shafter, S.R., Rice, J.K., & Nitkin, D. (2017). Virtual Schools Report 2017. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schoolsannual-2017 • Müller, E. (2009). Serving students with disabilities in state-level virtual K–12 public school Programs. Alexandria, VA: Project Forum, National Association of State Directors of Special Education. • Peterson, R. L., Zabel, R. H., Smith, C. R., & White, M. A. (1983). Cascade of services model and emotionally disabled students. Exceptional Children, 49(5), 404-408. doi:10.1177/001440298304900503 • Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(3), 11. • Public Law 93-380 (Education Amendments of 1974), 1974.

  23. References • Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving outcomes for students with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2), 91-104,145-146. Retrieved from • Rhim, L., & Kowal, J. (2008). Demystifying special education in virtual charter schools. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. • Spitler, C., Repetto,J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2013). Investigation of special education program in public cyber charter school. The American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 4-15. Doi: 10.1080/08923647.2013.754182 • U.S Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward a new golden age in american education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484046.pdf • Wright, P. W., & Wright, P. D. (2007). Wrightslaw: Special education law. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press.

  24. References • Zirkel, P. A. (2015). Special education law: Illustrative basics and nuances of key IDEA components. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(4), 263-275. doi:10.1177/0888406415575377

More Related