The least restrictive environment provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) is an example of how American laws written to address structural barriers for people with disabilities may be constrained or circumvented by the American rights-based legal system. This article provides a background on rights-based and social relations approaches to policy implementation, reviews the relevant case law, reviews the economic implications of the IDEA, addresses institutional structural factors and concludes with policy recommendations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (1992; 1999; 2005). 34 CFR § 300-304.
2.
Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Comment is in error. It is in the text.
3.
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., 119 S. Ct. 992 (1999).
4.
Chambers, J.G. (1999). The patterns of expenditures on students with disabilities: A methodological and empirical analysis. In T. B. Parris, J. G. Chambers , & C. M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding special education (pp. 89—123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
5.
Chow, P., Blais, L., & Hemingway, J. (1999). An Outsider looking in: Total inclusion and the concept of equifinality. Education, 119(3), 459—464.
6.
Clyde K. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 35 F.3d 1396 (9th Cir. 1994).
7.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). Bright futures for exceptional learners— Findings. Retrieved July 18, 2003, from www.cec.sped.org/spotlight/cond/bf_findings.html
8.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
9.
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).
10.
Foster, J. (1999). An invitation to dialogue: Clarifying the position of feminist gender theory in relation to sexual difference theory. Gender & Society, 13(4), 431—456. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
11.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1994). Sometimes separate is better (education for learning disabled children). Educational Leadership, 54(4), 22—27. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1995). What's special about special education?Phi Delta Kappan, 76(7), 522—530.
12.
Greer v. Rome City Sch. Dist., 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991).
13.
Harry, B., & Anderson, M. (1994). The disproportionate placement of African Americans in special education programs: A critique of the process. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(4), 602—619.
14.
Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Educ., No. 96-2809 (4th Cir. 1997). Retrieved April 14, 2004, from www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ case_Hartmann4thCir.html
15.
Hasazi, S.B., Johnston, A.P., Liggett, A.M., & Schattman, R.A. (1994). A qualitative policy study of the least restrictive environment provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Exceptional Children, 60(6), 491—508.
16.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990) (amended 1997, 2004).
17.
Jenkins, R. (1991). Disability and social stratification. British Journal of Sociology,42(4), 557—580.
18.
Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualification of public school teachers. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES1999-080.
19.
MacKinnon, C.A., & Dworkin, A. (1988). Pornography and civil rights: A new day for women's equality. Minneapolis, MN: Organizing Against Pornography.
20.
Mamlin, N. (1999). Despite best intentions: When inclusion fails . The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 36—49.
21.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001 ). Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-1. Retrieved September 16, 2003, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/02_1.html
22.
Minow, M. (1990). Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion and American law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
23.
Missouri Department of Education. (2002). Special education compliance maximizing: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 16, 2003, from http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divspeced/Compliance/Q&A/Max.html#11.4
24.
Oberti v. Board of Educ. of the Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).
25.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2001 ). General education teachers' role in special education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved August 7, 2003, from www.spense.org
26.
Osborne, A.G., & Dimattia, P. (1994). The IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate: Legal implications. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 6—15.
27.
Palley, E. (2003). The role of the courts in the development and implementation of the IDEA. Social Service Review, 77(4), 605-618.
28.
Parrish, T.B., & Wolmar, J. (1999). Trends and new eevelopments in special education funding: What the states report. In T. B. Parrish, J. G. Chambers, & C. M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding special education . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press .
29.
Parrish, T.B., O'Reilly, F., I.E. Dueñas, & J. Wolman. (1997). State special education finance systems, 1994—95. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Center for Special Education Finance.
30.
Pyke, K.D. (1996). Class-based masculinities: The interdependence of gender, class and interpersonal power. Gender & Society , 10(5), 527—549.
31.
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
32.
Rioux, M.H. (2003). On second thought: Constructing knowledge, law, disability, and inequality. In S. S. Herr , L. O. Gostin, & H. H. Koh (Eds.), The human rights of persons with intellectual disabilities (pp. 287—318). New York : Oxford University Press.
33.
Roncher v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).
34.
Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. Board of Educ. v. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).
35.
Schnit, D. (2003). When legislation should take intellectual disabilities into account. In S. S. Herr, L. O. Gostin, & H. H. Koh (Eds.), The human rights of persons with intellectual disabilities (pp. 237—262). New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
Schwartzman, L. (1999). Liberal rights theory and social inequality: A feminist critique. Hypatia, 14(2), 26.
37.
Snyder, R.F. (1999). Inclusion: A qualitative study of inservice general education teachers' attitudes and concerns. Education, 120(1), 173—182.
38.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. 791 et seq.
39.
U.S. Department of Education (2001). OSERS 23rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the IDEA. Retrieved November 14, 2005 from www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/OSEP/2001
40.
Vestegen.Verstegen, D. A. (1999). Civil rights and disability policy: A historical perspective. In T. B. Parrish, J. G. Chambers, & C. M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding special education (pp. 3—21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
41.
Wilson, B.A. (1999). Inclusion: Empirical guidelines and unanswered questions. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34(2), 119—133.
42.
Winzer, M.A. (1998). The inclusion movement and teacher change: Where are the limits?McGill Journal of Education, 33(3), 229—251.
43.
Zajicek, A.M., & Calasanti, T.M. (1998). Patriarchical struggles and state practices: A feminist, political-economic view. Gender & Society,12(5), 505—527.
