Legal Requirements/Court Cases

The most current language of the federal mandate concerning inclusive education comes from the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These federal regulations include rulings that guide the regulation. The IDEA r equires that children with disabilities be educated in regular education classrooms unless "the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in the regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfac torily." This means that schools have a duty to try to include students with disabilities in the regular general education classes.

For a summary Q&A of the changes in the 1997 IDEA and what they mean for general education teachers, go to the U.S. government's Office of Special Education Resource Services web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA/q_and_a.html.

The IDEA states:
"Each State must establish procedures to assure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities ... are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special education, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disa bilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. 1412(5)(B).

Dr. Susan Etscheidt, professor of special education at UNI and one of five Iowa administrative law judges, notes that in one of the first court cases to question the legal interpretation of the 1990 IDEA the Supreme Court said no one is excluded from t his requirements; everyone is entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).

What is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
Section 504 is important in the legal mandate of Least Restrictive Environment and the use of supplementary aids and services for students with disabilities because it was used to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of disability. However, Section 504 did not help define use of supplementary aids and services.

When was the IDEA first passed?
Amendments to the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) changed the name of that Act to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

What is least restrictive environment and what does the IDEA say about it?
The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the educational setting that provides the greatest exposure to an interaction with general education students and persons without disabilities.

What are the main changes in the 1997 Amendments to the IDEA?

1. The amendments for the first time define "aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular education classes or other education related settings to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maxim um extent appropriate."
   

   Related services means transportation and other support services to help a child with a disability benefit from special education.
   

   Supplementary aids and service enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate (Etscheidt & Bartlett, 1999).

2. General education teachers are now part of the team that develops each child's IEP (Individualized Education Program) that guides the child's education enabling the child to be involved and make progress in the regular curriculum.

For general education teachers who would like more information on the IEP process, go to the following sites (many others are also on the world wide web under Individualized Education Program):

Short Version of IEP Process -- http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/1142/iep.html

IEP Checklist -- http://www.pai-ca.org/pubs/501201.html

COACH training site, University of Vermont Affiliated Programs -- Choosing Outcomes and Accommodations for Children, a step-by-step IEP process starting with parents' vision for their child. -- http ://www.uvm.edu/~mgiangre/coach.html

Legal History to Including Children with Disabilities
in General Education Setting

Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989)

In this 5th Circuit Court case involving the education of a 6-year-old boy with Down syndrome the Court asked two main questions about placing a student with disabilities in a regular education setting. The Court wrote that it saw a two-part test for determining compliance with the mainstreaming requirement.

1. Can education in the regular education classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, be achieved satisfactorily for a given child?
   1. has the state taken steps to accommodate the handicapped children in regular education, and if so, are these efforts sufficient and within reason?
   2. will the child receive an educational benefit from regular education? The Court says that "academic achievement is not the only purpose of mainstreaming. Integrating a handicapped child into a nonhandicapped environment may be beneficial in and of it self... even if the child cannot flourish academically."
   3. is there any detriment to the child from the proposed mainstreaming?
   4. what effect will the handicapped child's presence have on the regular classroom environment and on the education of the other students in the class?
2. Has the child been mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate (this must occur if the decision is to remove the child from the regular education environment for a portion of the day)?

   The court noted the law does not permit "mere token gesture" (p. 1048) by schools in the accommodation of students with disabilities.

Greer v. Rome City School District (1990/1991/1992)

The 11th Circuit Court followed the 5th Circuit decision and said school officials had made no effort to modify the kindergarten curriculum to accommodate Christy in the regular classroom. It said the school had to consider "the whole range o f supplemental aids and service" (p. 696).

Oberti v. Board of Education (1992/1993)

The 3rd Circuit Court developed a two-pronged approach to determining if schools were meeting the IDEA. The Court applied tests to determine if adequate levels of supplementary aids and services were adopted. The Court concluded no specific training, coordination, and communication with special education staff or planning had been done to deal with the student's behavior problem. Therefore, the Court concluded that schools were required to make greater efforts to mainstream disabled student s or explain why not.

Board of Education v. Holland (1992, 1994)

The 9th Circuit District Court defined LRE as a strong Congressional preference. This opinion combined factors from several previous decisions to determine what the least restrictive environment is. Those factors dealt with educational benefi ts in a regular classroom; non-academic benefits for the handicapped child in a regular classroom; the child's effect on the teacher and other child in the regular class; and the cost of supplementary aids and service to mainstream the handicapped child. The Court said cost is only a factor if it will significantly affect another child in the district.

Mavis v. Sobol (1993)

A New York court found school efforts for placement in a regular classroom were inadequate because the school had not provided a behavior management plan or training for staff to help modify the regular curriculum to meet the student's needs.< /blockquote>

Statum v. Birmingham Public School Board (1993)

An Alabama court specified what supplementary aids and services would make it possible for a student with a mental and physical disability to succeed in a primary grade regular education class.

Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education (1996)

A Virginia federal district court ruled that a nonverbal student with autism should attend a regular education second grade class with appropriate supplemental aids and services. However, when the case was appealed, the 4th Circuit Court co ncluded that the inclusion efforts were sufficient with staff training and help on behavior issues, reduced class size, and class composed of independent workers.

Clyde K. v. Puyallup School District (1994)

The 9th Circuit Court determined that a boy with Tourette syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder could be removed from regular education and placed in special education because he would not benefit academically or socially from regular education. The court concluded the school's efforts to provide supplementary aids and services were appropriate but unsuccessful.

Poolaw v. Bishop (1995)
Hudson v. Bloomfield Hills Public Schools (1995)
McWhirt v. Williamson County School District (1994)
D. F. v. Western School Corporation (1996)

In the first case, the Court rejected the parents' suggestions of inadequate supplementary aids and services for their child with a severe hearing impairment. As a result, the student could be placed in a school specializing in educating stud ents with hearing impairments.

In the second case, the Court ruled that the student's needs were so great that even a half-time special education and half-time regular education placement with substantially modified academic work was not enough. A similar conclusion was re ached in the third decision as well as in D. F. v. Western School Corporation (1996) where the court ruled that a teacher associate and a totally modified curriculum would not help inclusion of a student with moderate to severe mental disabilities.

Fort Zumwalt School District v. Missouri State Board of Education (1996)

A Missouri Court agreed with the parents and ruled that inclusion of a student with serious learning disabilities was inappropriate after the school refused to retrain its teachers. However, the school appealed and the 8th Circuit Court rever sed the district court decision saying the school had proposed an appropriate IEP.

Jonathan G. v. Lower Merion School District (1997)

Pennsylvania parents opposed inclusion but a Court said the regular education classroom was appropriate with supplementary services.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (1999)

The Supreme Court ruled that taxpayer-supported schools are responsible for the costs of providing continual care for disabled students under a federal law that says all children must receive "free, appropriate public education." Under the Co urt's reading of the IDEA's relevant provisions, medical treatments such as suctioning, ventilator checks, catheterization, and others which can be administered by non-physician personnel come within the parameters of the special education law's related services.