Placement Decisions for Students with Disabilities

 

 

A placement decision is a determination of where a student’s IEP will be implemented.

    

a.      The decision is made by “a group of persons, including the parents, and other

persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options”.

b.     Federal law does not create or assign any particular name, such as IEP team, for

the group of persons.  M-team is commonly used here.

c.     Parental preference can be neither the sole nor predominant factor in a placement

decision.

d.     Parental hostility is a factor that must be considered, if it is so pronounced that it

Undermines the effectiveness of the placement.

e.     The IEP must be developed prior to making a placement decision.  The child

cannot be tailored to fit an existing program.  This is known as ‘shoehorning’ and violates FAPE.

 

Must a child with a disability be placed in his neighborhood school?

   

  1. No.  It should be “as close as possible to the child’s home”.
  2. The child should be educated in the school he or she would attend if not disabled, unless the IEP requires some other arrangement.
  3. IDEA says nothing about where  in a  district a student with a disability should be included.  It says that they should be included as much as possible.

 

Factors a district should consider in making a placement may include the following:

     

  1. Whether the proposed program, at the proposed location, is reasonably calculated

provide an educational benefit and would afford the student the amount of interaction appropriate to the student’s needs (age, grade, social activities, transition needs, etc.)

  1. Whether the location is within the district and within a reasonable distance from

student’s home.

  1. Whether the proposed location offered benefits or advantages that the

neighborhood school does not.

  1. What costs would be involved in making the neighborhood school and equally

suitable location for the student.

 

(Leading case in placement decisions is Schuldt v. Mankato Independent School District No. 77, 18 IDELR 673 (8th Cir. 1991)

 

Inclusion- although not a legal term under IDEA, it is generally understood and accepted by the courts to mean “that a student with disabilities receives at least a portion of his education in the regular education classroom.  If this is not happening, then the IEP must detail why.  Full inclusion means that “the placement of a child with a disability in his home school in a regular education classroom with age-and grade-appropriate peers”.

 

Mainstreaming-used earlier to mean placement in a regular education classroom.  It is not synonymous with ‘participation in the general curriculum’.  Participation in the general curriculum concerns what is learned, not where it is learned.  Legally, a child with a disability cannot be removed to a self-contained program solely because of needed modifications in the general curriculum.

 

The standard for whether a child can be “educated satisfactorily” in a regular education classroom placement comes from Oberi v. Board of Education, 19 IDELR 908, 914 (3rd Cir. 1993):

 

“In determining whether a child with disabilities can be educated satisfactorily in a regular class with supplementary aids and services…the court should consider several factors, including;  1) whether the school district has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child in  a regular classroom, 2) the educational benefits available to the child in a regular class, with appropriate supplementary aids and services, as compared to the benefits pr4ovided in a special class, and 3) the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the child on the education of the other students in the class.”

 

This is compatible with the LRE provisions of the 1999 IDEA.

 

The following are reasons to not include students with disabilities in regular classes, if the student:

 

1.     will not receive a sufficient education benefit in a regular classroom, even with the provision of supplementary aids and services;

2.     requires so much of the teacher’s time and attention that he substantially interferes with the learning of others in the classroom;

3.     threatens the safety of other students or poses a danger to himself if placed in the regular classroom;

4.     engages in significantly disruptive behavior, event with the use of behavioral intervention, that interferes with the education of classmates;

5.     will require so much modification in the curriculum that the regular program has to be altered beyond recognition.

 

According to OSEP, under IDEA the decision to remove a student from the regular education environment cannot be based on category of disability, configuration of the delivery system, availability of educational or related services, availability of space or administrative convenience.

 

Two part Supreme Court test for educating students with disabilities in regular classrooms:

 

1.     Determine if the education can be achieved satisfactorily with supplementary aids and services.  If not…

2.     Has the child been mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate.