Given the increased amount of Individual Education Program (IEP) team meetings held annually during the spring, it is apropos to revisit factors contributing toward the educational placement decisions for a student with a disability. The determination of the most appropriate educational environment for an individual student with a disability must be based on that student’s needs as explicated by his or her present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP). The student’s PLAAFP is a crucial section of the IEP and determined through the educational team’s reliable instructional and assessment processes. When validly and reliably identified and detailed, the student’s PLAAFP provides crucial information for determining the optimal placement that will be specified by the IEP team.
Depending on the student’s diverse strengths and areas for development, his or her need for instructional access to the general education curriculum may require different educational placements, for varying durations, and at different times during his or her academic career. Consideration of a continuum of services (Deno, 1962; Reynolds, 1970) allows the IEP team to explore and utilize services from a combination of programmatic options. Once familiar with the placement model, few people would find the model to be problematic. Rather, too often the lack of collaborative and deliberate consideration and respect for the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance result in decision-making that adversely impact the integrity of the placement process which is designed to protect the student’s civil rights.
The least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate is key requirement for educating children with disabilities under IDEA (2004). This mandate states:
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 educational 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 [Sec 612(a)(5)(A)].
Interpretations of the meaning of least restrictive environment vary in special education. These beliefs range from those that view the regular education classroom in a student’s neighborhood school as always the least restrictive environment for all students, to those that advocate for a full continuum of program placements (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999). Prior to 2000, the overriding emphasis for determining the LRE for students with special needs focused placement decisions on the “where” rather than the “how” of the “instruction that should be taught” (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p. 1). It is now ethical and reasonable to accept “the environment in which all the needs of a student are best met, where the student acquires the greatest benefits from the educational program” (Curry & Hatlen, 1988, p. 420) is the least restrictive and thereby most appropriate environment.
The most enabling placement is one in which the student has the opportunity to fully participate in all aspects of the school experience including acquisition of special skills, thereby providing an academic, social, and emotional environment that encourages a holistic development in preparation for life. The issue is the quality of education provided within a particular placement as measured by the degree to which specific, unique needs can be met”(Hazekamp & Huebner, 1989, p. 1).
Explicating the general approach for determining placement a student found eligible for special education services, Riley (2000) identified how the IEP team must first consider if the student can be provided with an appropriate education in a regular education classroom with the services already there. If not, then the IEP team moves through increasingly more “restrictive” settings, whereby subsequent consideration are on settings that become increasingly more segregated from typically developing peers. These settings may range from the regular education classroom with supplementary aids and service, to a slightly more segregated setting with the services embedded, to a more segregated setting modified with supplementary aids and services.
Although many factors must be considered before determining the educational placement of a student with a disability, Heumann and Hehir (2004) identify the relationship between the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirements to the IEP process as a key factor (IDEA, 2004). Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the student’s IEP team must use an ethical and reliable basis for determining the student’s placement decision. Through the filter of federal law, policies, and procedures, the IEP team must document, evaluate, and consider the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance (IDEA, 2004). Therefore, the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP) creates the foundation for decision-making. Thereafter, based on clear, coherent, valid, and reliable data, PLAAFP provides the best criteria for determining a student’s optimal educational placement.
Anderson, C.J. (April 9, 2014) The Process for Determining the Educational Placement of a Student with
a Disability. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
Council for Exceptional Children (2003). What Every Special Educator Must Know (5th ed.).
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children
Crockett, J.B., & Kauffmann, J.M. (1999) The least restrictive environment: Its origins and
Interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Curry, S.A., & Hatlen, P.H. (1988). Meeting the unique educational needs of visually impaired pupils
through appropriate placement. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 82, 417-424
Federal Register (2006). IDEA 2004 Regulations. Retrieved from:
Hazekamp, J., & Huebner, K.M. (Eds.). (1989). Program planning and evaluation for blind and visually
impaired students: National guidelines for educational excellence. New York, NY: American
Foundation for the Blind.
Heumann, J.E. & Hehir (2004). Letter to the council of chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm
Holbrook, M.C., & Koenig, A.J. (2000). Basic techniques for modifying instruction.
A.J. Koenig & M.C. Holbrook (Eds.) Foundations of education: Vol. 2 (2nd Ed., pp. 173-195).
New York: AFB Press.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446.
Riley, R. (2000). Educating blind and visually impaired students: Policy guidance fromOSERS. Retrieved from http://www.ed/gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2000-2/060800a.html