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.
To
cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (April 9, 2014) The Process for Determining
the Educational Placement of a Student with
References
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 from
OSERS. Retrieved from http://www.ed/gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2000-2/060800a.html
