PLEASE READ THE LAWS and CASES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN

[Guest guest]

Hartmann v. Loudon County: Educational Benefit v. Mainstreaming Preference

In 1997, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned a favorable decision in an inclusion case, Mark Hartmann v. Loudon County. The Court found that mainstreaming or inclusion is secondary to the need to provide a free appropriate education from which the child receives educational benefit:

"The mainstreaming provision represents recognition of the value of having disabled children interact with non-handicapped students. The fact that the provision only creates a presumption, however, reflects a congressional judgment that receipt of such social benefits is ultimately a goal subordinate to the requirement that disabled children receive educational benefit."

"... the IDEA’s mainstreaming provision establishes a presumption, not an inflexible federal mandate. Under its terms, disabled children are to be educated with children who are not handicapped only "to the maximum extent appropriate." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(. Section 1412(5)( explicitly states that mainstreaming is not appropriate "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)(; see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181 n.4."

In Hartmann, the Court held that:

" . . . we specifically held that mainstreaming is inappropriate when "the handicapped child is a disruptive force in the non-segregated setting." 882 F.2d at 879 (quoting Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1063 (6th Cir. 1983)). In this case, disruptive behavior was clearly an issue." N.R. v. Kingwood Township: Continuum of Placements

In N.R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ), U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified "meaningful benefit" as the requirement to offer a "continuum of placements," and the requirement to provide a "free appropriate education (FAPE)" in the "least restrictive environment."

The case involved N.R., a child who was found eligible for special education services at age 3. The district developed an IEP that placed him in a "hybrid" preschool program, described as "a single, half-day preschool class composed of half disabled children and half non-disabled children." His parents rejected the district's IEP and placed their child in a private preschool program. "Significant Learning" & "Meaningful Educational Benefit"

Many special education disputes involve questions about FAPE and educational benefit. In N.R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ), the court clarified "educational benefit":

"Specifically . . a satisfactory IEP must provide "significant learning" and confer "meaningful benefit."

What Does the Law Say About LRE?

The IDEA statute and implementing regulations emphasize the requirement to educate children with disabilities in regular classes with their nondisabled peers:

"While the Act and regulations recognize that IEP teams must make individualized decisions about the special education ... IDEA’s strong preference that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities be educated in regular classes with their nondisabled peers with appropriate supplementary aids and services."

Subject: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!To: sList Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 8:54 AM

Are you stating that an appropriate reason for segregation is to avoid our children being "on stage, creating a show"? Do you have arguments/debate points a little stronger than that, or should I say WAY stronger than that? There's so much research that indicates the absolute positives of inclusion. Plus there's that IDEA law that says that segregagtion is ONLY appropriate when it can be SHOWN (that is, it is must first be attempted) that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment given ALL the supports/services he requires to stay in that environment.

In Broward, all kids with autism in preschool are automatically segregated. Then the majority (at least from what I understand most) move onto clusters. They are never even given a CHANCE at integration. So the law is broken for each and every one of those students. How can it be shown that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment when the child was NOT IN THAT ENVIRONMENT for a school year, (or half a school year, or even one month for Pete's sake!) (WITH appropriate support).

To "accomodate" the law, the School District twists the wording into something similar that you used and that is "least restrictive, most appropriate" . The law DOES NOT state this but instead states "To the MAXIMUM EXTENT APPROPRIATE, children with disabilities are to be educated with their non-disabled peers unless it can be shown that this CANNOT be achieve satisfactorily" . There is no "unless the child is on stage putting on a show" clause.

The "show" is only temporary compared to the long-term significant benefits of inclusion. Additionally, the person "on top of them" is no more restrictive in a typical classroom than the person "on top of them" in the segregated classroom environment.

The School District may make it seem as if the "show" is something to be hidden--kept away from typical children. In actuality, the school's practice of widespread segregation. ..so much that its become commonplace and acceptable.. is where the REAL shame lies.

Additionally, learning "prerequisite skills" is NOT law, NOT based on research, but something that the school districts make up in order to save money. PLease, show me where it states that "prerequisite skills" are necessary OUTSIDE of school district literature. Additionally, what social & communication & behavioral environment are the children given when they are segregated? All the peers/role models are similarly disabled! Isn't that senseless?

In Broward County, inclusion is done when the child is high functioning. That's discrimination and that's against the law PERIOD.

From NICHY website:

"Since its earliest days, the law has displayed a strong preference for children with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers without disabilities, to the maximum extent appropriate. It recognizes that, in many cases, supplementary aids and services must be provided to a child with a disability to enable him or her to be educated in the general education classroom. Simply put, then, removal of a child with disabilities from the regular education class may occur only if the child cannot be satisfactorily educated in the regular educational environment with the use of supplementary aids and services." http://webcache. googleuserconten t.com/search? q=cache:xLpv0sWS JSEJ:www. nichcy.org/ educatechildren/ iep/pages/ extentofparticip ation.aspx+ to+the+maximum+ extent+appropria te & cd=3 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us