A Qualitative Policy Study of the Least Restrictive Environment Provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Abstract

A multistate, qualitative policy study, conducted from 1989 to 1992, investigated how 6 states and 12 local school districts implemented the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Eight sites were relatively high users of separate facilities for educating students with disabilities, and 10 were low users. Six factors, including financing and the state-local context, influenced the implementation of LRE. Although the LRE policy has influenced the way that states and districts educate students with disabilities, the federal law and regulations have little control over how leaders view the policy, the structure and political realities present, and the recursive nature of policy systems at all levels.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bateson

, & Bateson

M. C.

(1988). Angels fear: Toward an epistemology of the sacred. New York: Bantam Books.

Brinker

P. B.

, & Thorpe

M. E.

(1985). Some empirically derived hypotheses about the influence of state policy on the degree of integration of severely handicapped students. RASE, 6(3), 18–26.

Danielson

L. C.

, & Bellamy

G. T.

(1989). State variation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated environments. Exceptional Children, 55, 448–455.

Glazer

, & Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glesne

, & Peshkin

(1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Goggin

M. L.

(1987). Policy design and the politics of implementation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Lincoln

, & Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Marshall

, & Rossman

(1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McDonnell

, & Elmore

R. F.

(1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–151.

10.

McLaughlin

(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.

11.

Miles

M. B.

, & Huberman

A. M.

(1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

12.

Moustakas

(1990). Heuristic research: Design, methodology, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Murphy

(1974). State education agencies and discretionary funds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

14.

Noel

M. M.

, & Fuller

B. C.

(1985). The social policy construction of special education: The impact of state characteristics on identification and integration of handicapped children. Remedial and Special Education, 6(3), 27–35.

15.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

16.

Pressman

J. L.

, & Wildavsky

(1983). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

17.

Rostetter

Kowalski

, & Hunter

(1984). In Certo

Haring

, & York

(Eds.), Public school integration of severely handicapped students (pp. 293–319). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

18.

Sabatier

, & Mazmanian

(1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8, 538–560.

19.

Tesch

(1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: The Falmer Press.

20.

Turnbull

H. R.

Brotherson

M. F.

Czyzewski

M. J.

Esquith

D. S.

Otis

A. K.

Summers

J. A.

Van Ruesen

A. K.

, & DePazza-Conway

(1983). A policy analysis of “least restrictive” education of handicapped children. Rutgers Law Journal, 14, 489–540.