Summer 2006 editionState requires schools to look more closely at ‘least restrictive environment’
About the author
Barbara Ransom, Esq. is an attorney at the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. She served as co-counsel in Gaskin v. Commonwealth, which was filed on June 30, 1994 and settled on September 19, 2005.
Email this article to:
State requires schools to look more closely at ‘least restrictive environment’
by Barbara Ransom
The changes that the Pennsylvania Department of Education has put into place as a result of amendments to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) and the recent settlement agreement in the historic Gaskin case are creating quite a stir in school districts across the state.
The Gaskin lawsuit challenged the Department of Education to provide more oversight of school districts’ obligation to provide education in the “least restrictive environment” to children with individualized education programs (IEPs). The Gaskin case sought to ensure that school districts provide every school-age student with a disability the special education and related services in the least restrictive environment needed to enable the child to succeed academically.
The settlement of this litigation was a collaboration between the parties – the Gaskin plaintiffs and the state’s Bureau of Special Education – intended to benefit all eligible school-aged children in the Commonwealth.
Spurred on by the settlement and IDEA 2004, the state has required districts to make significant changes in the development of a student’s IEP and in placement decisions. Now the team that develops the IEP must make all placement decisions by first determining whether the goals they have developed for the student can be implemented in regular classrooms with supplementary aids and services.
Supplementary aids and services are any modifications to the regular education program that a child needs to be fully included, such as instructional or behavioral aides, facilitated communication devices, modified curricula, or modified textbooks. Before the IEP team can consider removing the child from the regular education classroom, supplementary aids and services must be provided to include the child to the maximum extent appropriate.
School districts can still assert that education in the regular classroom is not possible if:
- the child’s disabilities are so severe that he or she will receive little or no benefit from inclusion;
- he or she is so disruptive as to significantly impair the education of other children in the class; or
- the cost of providing an inclusive education will significantly affect other children in the district.
This requirement obviously provides some new challenges for Philadelphia, where almost 24,000 children have IEPs, and many students have “high-incident” classifications –58 percent with a learning disability, 10 percent with emotionally disturbed (ED) labels, and 14 percent with mental retardation (MR) labels. The District’s exclusion of children with MR and ED labels from regular classrooms has become more the norm than the exception.
A parent must be alert to the factors that challenge a child’s ability to receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment and not let the school turn molehills into mountains. It helps for parents to get to know their child’s teachers and the building staff; to be a presence in the school; to insist on record-keeping and receiving information about any incidents that occur; and to review the child’s records periodically.
The state has produced an amended IEP form, including a number of changes as part of the Gaskin agreement. For example, in completing Section VII, which pertains to educational placement, the IEP team must now explain any limits on participation in the general education curriculum with non-disabled peers. The team must also identify the modifications that the child needs in order to be included and explain whether the child will participate in extracurricular and non-academic activities.
In just the first six months of the five-year Gaskin agreement, three other major provisions have been implemented. A panel consisting mainly of parents now advises the Bureau of Special Education on the implementation of the agreement. The state has begun monitoring the districts with the worst performance in meeting the IDEA’s “least restrictive environment” mandate, including Philadelphia. The state has also begun awarding mini-grants of $3,500 to $30,000 to school districts this school year. To date, only one public school in Philadelphia, Shaw Middle School, has applied for and received a mini-grant.
The panel meets quarterly and already has provided valuable input toward effective implementation of the agreement. The next panel meeting – which includes a public portion – will be held June 27-28 in State College.