sade096

The readers of this blog are very smart. I could write on this topic for many days, but here is a very clear recent example: We recently ran a post on OSEP non-regulatory guidance concerning the meaning of the Endrew F Supreme Court decision. One of our smart readers called to my attention that the OSEP guidance provides the following for Q & A 17: "17. How does the Endrew F. decision impact placement decisions?  Consistent with the decision in Endrew F., the Department continues to recognize that it is essential to make individualized determinations about what constitutes appropriate instruction and services for each child with a disability and the placement in which that instruction and those services can be provided to the child. There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to educating children with disabilities. Rather, placement decisions must be individualized and made consistent with a child’s IEP. We note that placement in regular classes may not be the least restrict...

In the previous posts in this series, we have introduced you to the requirement of  FAPE.  In this installment, we discuss the distinct but equally important requirement of LRE. The Requirement of  LRE  (least restrictive environment)  People are surprised to learn that IDEA does not mention the word "mainstreaming."  IDEA does require, however, that to the “…maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities … 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 use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”    IDEA, § 612(a)(5).  See, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 to 300.119. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue of LRE, but a number of Circuit Courts of ...