Understanding the Role of Academic Progress in Least Restrictive Environment
What it Means for IEP Goals
A recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has significant implications for how schools determine the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with individualized education plans/programs (IEPs). And you might hate it.
The court ruled that a student can receive satisfactory academic benefits in a regular education classroom even if they make minimal academic progress with typical peers due to a heavily-modified curriculum and the support of a one-to-one aide.
Under existing law, students with disabilities must be educated in the LRE with their typical peers to the maximum extent appropriate. They should only be removed from the regular classroom if the nature or severity of their disability prevents them from being satisfactorily educated, even with the use of supplementary aids and services. When analyzing whether a regular classroom is the LRE, an IEP team must determine that the student is making enough academic progress that their education is being achieved satisfactorily, even if another setting would be academically superior.
The court considered other relevant factors in the LRE analysis, such as non-academic benefits (e.g., social and communication) the student receives from the regular classroom, potential negative effects the student’s presence may have on the other students in the classroom, and the cost of educating the student in the regular classroom.
In the case of D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified Sch. Dist., the student was placed in a regular classroom with a one-to-one aide for 75% of the day and spent the remainder of the day in a special education classroom. Using a heavily-modified curriculum and one-to-one aide support, the student met four of their six academic IEP goals and progressed on the other two. The District believed the student would receive more academic benefits if their time in the special education setting were increased. They proposed a blended placement of 56% of the day in regular education with aide support and 44% in special education.
The parents contended that the student was being satisfactorily educated by spending most of their day in the regular education class and filed for due process. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) ruled that the District’s proposed placement did not violate the IDEA, so the parents appealed to the federal District Court.
The District Court agreed with the ALJ that the student’s heavily-modified curriculum and the need to spend most of their time working with their aide resulted in minimal academic progress. The District Court observed that the student “was effectively on an island in general education for academic purposes.” Hence, spending most of their day in regular education was not the LRE. The District Court also agreed with the ALJ that the student’s success in their IEP goals did not result from inclusion in the regular education classroom but from working on the heavily-modified curriculum with their aide and with the time spent in the special education setting.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, stating that the District’s proposed blended placement was not the LRE because the student was being educated “satisfactorily” in the regular education classroom. For students whose disabilities prevent them from performing at grade level, the proper measure of academic benefit under Rachel H. is whether the student makes progress toward academic IEP goals.
This ruling has several key takeaways for educators and parents of students with disabilities. Firstly, a student’s progress on academic IEP goals is the proper measure of whether a student receives a satisfactory academic benefit in a regular education class. Secondly, complying with LRE may mean a student works several years below grade level on a heavily-modified curriculum with an aide in a regular classroom. Thirdly, a student who minimally participates in the academic portion of the regular class due to working on a heavily-modified curriculum with an aide may still receive an academic benefit. And lastly, the LRE analysis should not consider increased time spent in special education as a factor in the student's ability to achieve academic success.