In spite of advances in public school programs for students with severe handicaps, numerous cases challenging the placement of students in non-integrated programs are reaching the courts. These cases typically seek to establish whether integrated public schools represent the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with severe handicaps. In this paper, court case decisions supporting both integrated and nonintegrated placements as the LRE are investigated. Specifically, the extent to which recent court decisions have influenced educational concepts of the LRE for severely handicapped students is examined. The rationale for these decisions is presented and implications for special educators are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baer, D.M. (1981). A hung jury and a Scottish verdict: “Not proven.”Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 91–98.
2.
Beattie v.Board of Education of City of Antigo, 169 Wis. 231 (1919).
3.
Biklen, D., & Foster, S.B. (1985). Principles for integrated community programming. In M.P. Brady & P. Gunter (Eds.), Integrating moderately and severely handicapped learners: Strategies that work (pp. 16-46). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
4.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District et al. v. Amy Rowley et al., 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982).
5.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Bonadonna v. Cooperman, 619 F. Supp. 401 (DN.J., 1985).
7.
Brady, M.P., & Cunningham, J. (1985). Living and learning in segregated environments: An ethnography of normalization outcomes. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 241–252.
8.
Brady, M.P., & Dennis, H.F. (1984). Integrating severely handicapped learners: Potential teacher liability in community-based programs. Remedial and Special Education, 5(5), 29–36.
9.
Brady, M.P., McEvoy, M., Gunter, P., Shores, R.E, & Fox, J.J. (1984). Considerations for socially integrated school environments for severely handicapped students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 246–253.
10.
Brady, M.P., Shores, R.E, Gunter, P., McEvoy, M., Fox, J.J, & White, C. (1984). Generalization of a severely handicapped adolescent's social interaction behavior via multiple peers in a classroom setting. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 278–286.
11.
Brady, M.P., Shores, R.E, McEvoy, M.A, Ellis, D., & Fox, J.J. (1987). Increasing the social interactions of severely handicapped autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 17, 375–390.
12.
Campbell v. Talladega City Board of Education, 518 F. Supp. 47 (1981).
13.
Colin K. v. Schmidt, 536 F. Supp. 1375 (1982).
14.
Colin K. by John K. v. Schmidt, 715 F. 2d 1 (1983).
15.
Cothern v. Mallory, 565 F. Supp. 701 (1983).
16.
David D. v. Dartmouth School Committee, 775 F. 2d 411 (1985).
17.
Espino v. Besteiro, 520 F. Supp. 905 (1981).
18.
Fox, J.J., Gunter, P., Brady, M.P, Bambara, L., Spiegel-McGill, P., & Shores, R.E. (1984). Using multiple peer exemplars to develop generalized social responding of an autistic girl. In R. Rutherford & C.M. Nelson (Eds.), Monograph on severe behavioral disorders of children and youth (Vol. 7, pp. 17-26). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
19.
Gaylord-Ross, R., & Peck, C. (1985). Integration efforts for students with severe mental retardation. In D. Bricker & J. Filler (Eds.), Severe mental retardation: From theory to practice (pp. 185-207). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
20.
Geis v. Board of Education of Parsipanny-Troy Hills, Morris County, 774 F. 2d 575 (1985).
21.
Gladys J. v. Pearland Independent School District, 520 F. Supp. 869 (1981).
22.
Gunter, P., Fox, J.J, Brady, M.P, Shores, R.E, & Cavanaugh, K. (1988). Nonhandicapped peers as multiple exemplars: A generalization tactic for promoting autistic students' social skills. Behavioral Disorders, 13, 116–126.
23.
Hairston v. Drosick, 423 F. Supp. 180 (1976).
24.
Hawaii (Department of Education, State of) v. Katherine D., 727 F. 2d 809 (1983).
25.
Honig v. Doe, 108 S. Ct. 592 (1988).
26.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 104 S. Ct. 3371 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1984).
27.
Johnston v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, 569 F. Supp. 1502 (1983).
28.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills: Sage.
29.
Kruelle v. New Castle County School District, 642 F. 2d 687 (1981).
30.
Kruk, T.L. (1984). Tort liability of public school or government agency for mis-classification or wrongful placement of student in special education program. American Law Reporter (4th ed.), 33, 1166--1172.
31.
Lang v. Braintree School Committee, 545 F. Supp. 1221 (1982).
32.
Laski, F. (1985). Judicial address of education for students with severe mental retardation: From access to schools to state-of-the-art. In D. Bricker & J. Fuller (Eds.), Severe mental retardation: From theory to practice (pp. 36-48). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
33.
Lilly, M.S. (1985). The next 30 years in special education. In M.P. Brady & P. Gunter (Eds.), Integrating moderately and severely handicapped learners: Strategies that work (pp. 295-310). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
34.
Luckasson, R. (1986). Attorney's fees reimbursement in special education cases: Smith v. Robinson. Exceptional Children, 52, 384–389.
35.
McCord, W. (1983). The outcome of normalization: Strengthened bonds between handicapped persons and their communities. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 18, 153–157.
36.
McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F. 2d 1527 (1985).
37.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (DD.C., 1972).
38.
Noonan, M.J., & Reese, R.M. (1984). Educability: Public policy and the role of research. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 8–15.
39.
Odom, S., & Strain, P. (1984). Peer-mediated approaches to promoting children's social interaction: A review. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 544–557.
40.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa., 1972).
41.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, C.A. (#71-42) (E.D. Pa.); Consent Decree on Enforcement Petition in Fialkowski et al. v. School District of Philadelphia et al. entered June 1982.
42.
Pinkerton v. Moye, 509 F. Supp. 107 (1981).
43.
Rettig v. Kent City School District, 539 F. Supp. 768 (1981).
44.
Reynolds, M., & Birch, J. (1982). Teaching exceptional children in all America's schools.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
45.
Roncker v. Walter, 700 F. 2d 1058 (1983).
46.
San Francisco Unified School District v. State, 182 Cal. Rptr. 525 (1982).
47.
Schoenfeld, D. (1987). Resolving placement and financing disputes under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Washington University Law Quarterly, 62(4), 763–781.
48.
Springdale School District #50 of Washington v. Grace, 693 F. 2d 41 (1982).
49.
Stacey G. et al. v. Pasadena Independent School District, 547 F. Supp. 61 (1982).
50.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1983). A review of research on the educability of profoundly retarded persons. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 18, 90–100.
51.
St. Louis Developmental Disabilities Treatment Center Parents Association v. Mallory, 591 F. Supp. 1477 (1984).
52.
Strain, P.S., & Fox, J.J. (1981). Peer social initiations and the modification of social withdrawal: A review and future perspective. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 6, 417–433.
53.
Taylor, S. (1982). From segregation to integration: Strategies for integrating severely handicapped students in normal school and community settings. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 42–49.
Turnbull, H.R., Ellis, J., Boggs, E., Brooks, P., & Biklen, D. (1981). The least restrictive alternative: Principles and practices.Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.
56.
Turnbull, H.R., & Turnbull, A. (1978). Free appropriate public education: Law and implementation.Denver: Love.
57.
Victoria L. by Carol A. v. District School Board of Lee County, Florida, 741 F. 2d 369 (1984).
58.
Vitello, S.J. (1986). The Tatro case: Who gets what and why. Exceptional Children, 52, 353–356.
59.
Vlasak. J. (1980, May). Mainstreaming handicapped children: The underlying legal concept. Journal of School Health, pp. 285–287.
60.
West Chester Area School District v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 401 A. 2d 610 (1979).
61.
What services must federally assisted schools provide for handicapped children under Education of the Handicapped Act (20 USCS 1401 et seq.). (1983). American Law Reporter (Federal), 63, 856–868.
62.
Wilson v. Marana Unified School District No. 6 of Pima County, 735 F. 2d 1178 (1984).
63.
Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation, 21(6), 235–239.
64.
Yanok, J. (1986). Free appropriate public education for handicapped children: Congressional intent and judicial interpretation. Remedial and Special Education, 7(2), 49–53.
