The Mainstreaming Cases: Tensions and Trends for School Administrators

Abstract

Educational administrators may sometimes feel caught between the special education requirements of a free appropriate public education and the preference for mainstreaming embodied in federal special education law. Understanding decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals can help school administrators determine how to balance the two requirements. Analysis of circuit court decisions reveals four overlapping judicial standards, depending, among other things, on whether physical and social mainstreaming or instructional mainstreaming is at stake. Many of the circuit opinions have introduced cost as a legitimate factor in placement decisions while ignoring some of the least restrictive environment regulations. Although circuit courts are not ordering education agencies to provide highly specialized services in each neighborhood school, a number of courts are requiring schools to make reasonable efforts to deliver special instruction in mainstream classrooms. School administrators are advised not to adopt either a blanket separation model ora blanket 'full inclusion" model of service delivery for all students with severe disabilities but to continue to make individualized placement decisions that honor the concept of least restrictive environment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

A. W v. NorthwestR-1 School District, 813 F.2d 158 (8thCir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 847 (1987).

Amann v. Stow School System, 982 F.2d 644 (1st Cir. 1992).

Barnett v. Fairfax County School Board, 927 F.2d 146 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 175 (1991).

Briggs v. Board of Education of Connecticut, 882 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1989).

CASE position paper . (1993, April-June). CASE Newsletter, pp. 2-3.

CEC policy on inclusive schools and community settings . (1993, May). Teaching Exceptional Children (Supplement).

Chris C. v. Gwinnett County School District, 780 F. Supp. 804 (N.D. Ga. 1991).

Community Consolidated School District No. 21 v. Illinois State Board of Education, 938 F.2d 712 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 957 (1992).

Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).

10.

Departent of Education . (1992). Notice of policy guidance.57 Fed Reg. 49, 274-49, 276.

11.

DeVries v. Fairfax County School Board, 882 F.2d 876 (4th Cir. 1989).

12.

Fischer v. Rochester Community Schools, 780 F. Supp. 1142, 1150 (E.D. Mich. 1991).

13.

French v. Omaha Public Schools, 766 F. Supp. 765 (D. Neb. 1991).

14.

Gillette v. Fairland Board of Education, 932 F.2d 551 (6th Cir. 1991).

15.

Greerv. Rome City School District, 950 F.2d 688 (llth Cir. 1991), op. withdrawn, 956 F.2d 1025 (1992), reinstated, 967 F.2d 470 (1992).

16.

Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

17.

Huefner, D. S. (1989). Special education residential placements under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.Journal of Law and Education, 18, 411-440.

18.

Huefner, D. S. (1991a). Judicial review of the special education program requirements under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Where have we been going and where should we be going? Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 14, 483-516.

19.

Huefner, D. S. (1991b). Special education residential placements for students with severe emotional disturbances: The implications of recent Ninth Circuit cases.West's Education Law Reporter, 67(2), 397-409.

20.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B. (1990). 20 U.S.C. §§1411-1420.

21.

IDEA-B Regulations (1992). 34 C.F.R. Part 300.

22.

Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Education, 852 F.2d 290 (7th Cir. 1988).

23.

LDA position paper on full inclusion of all students with learning disabilities in the regular education classroom. (1993, March/April). LDA News briefs, 1.

24.

Liscio v. Woodland Hills School District, 734 F. Supp. 689 (W.D. Pa. 1989), aff'd without opinion, 902 F.2d 1561 (3rd Cir. 1990).

25.

NASDSE . (1992, September). Position statement to United States House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on Select Education. Liaison Bulletin, pp. 7-11.

26.

Oberti v. Clementon School Board, 801 F.Supp. 1392 (D.N.J. 1992).

27.

Oberti v. Clementon School Board, 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).

28.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1991a). Goodling Letter; 18 IDELR 213.

29.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1991b). Frost Letter, 18 IDELR 594.

30.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1991c). Clinton letter, 17 EHLR 1108.

31.

Office of Special Education Programs. (1991). 17 EHLR 1104.

32.

Report card to the nation on incluion in education of students with mental retardation. (1992). ARC, P.O. Box 1047, Arlington, TX 76004.

33.

Reynolds, M. , & Birch, J. (1988). Adaptive mainstreaming (3rd ed.). New York lan.

34.

Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1122(1991).

35.

Ronckerv. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Cincinatti City School Dist v. Roncker, 464 U.S. 864 (1983).

36.

Sacramento City Unified School Districtv. Holland, 786 F. Supp. 874 (E.D.Cal. 1992).

37.

St. Louis Developmental Disabilities Treatment Center v. Mallory, 591 F. Supp. 1416 (W.D. Mo.) 1984.

38.

Schuldt v. Mankato Independent School District, 937 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 937 (1992).

39.

Section 504, Appendix to Regulations. (1984). 34 C.F.R. Part 104.

40.

Shannon M. v. Granite School District, 787 F. Supp. 1020 (D.Ut. 1992).

41.

Thomas v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 918 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 1990).

42.

Todd D. v. Andrews, 933 F.2d 1576 (11th Cir. 1991).

43.

Visco v. School District of Pittsburgh, 684 F. Supp. 1310 (W.D. Pa. 1984).

44.

Wilson v. Marana Unified School District, 735 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir. 1984).

45.

Winners all: A callfor inclusive schools. (1992, October). National Association of State Boards of Education.