Federal law requires that local school districts make sure children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled as much as possible. This applies to all children, including those in public or private institutions or other care facilities. Students should only be placed in special classes, separate schools, or removed from the general education classroom when their disability is so significant that they cannot be successfully educated in a general education class, even with extra help and services.^[1]

In addition, Congress has recognized that a state’s method of funding special education services can sometimes encourage districts to place students in specialized settings because of the potential to receive more money. Because of this danger, Congress requires states to develop policies and procedures to assure that their funding systems, if based on type of setting, do not violate the requirements of education in the least restrictive environment.^[2]

Congress has specifically recognized the importance of education of special education students in general education classes and environments.^[3] Congress requires that IEPs include a statement describing how the child’s disability affects their involvement and progress in the general curriculum and a statement of annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives that are related to enabling the student to be involved and progress in the general curriculum.^[4] The statement of services in the IEP must also include statements of: 

1. the supplemental aids and services to be provided for the student; and 
2. the program modifications and supports for school personnel to be provided for them to be involved, progress in the general curriculum, and participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities.^[5]

State law provides that:

Students with disabilities shall be offered “special assistance programs that promote maximum interaction with the general school population in a manner that is appropriate to the needs of both.”^[6]

Special classes for students with similar and more intensive needs should be available. These classes are only used when a student’s disability is so significant that they cannot succeed in general education classes, even with supplementary aids and services, behavior support and/or modifications. This rule also applies to any separate schooling or removal from the general education classroom.

In providing or arranging for the provision of activities, each public agency shall ensure that each [student] participates in those activities with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the [student with a disability], including nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.^[7]

For students not yet receiving special education, but for whom special education eligibility is being considered, state law provides that a student shall be referred for special educational instruction and services only after the resources of the general education program have been considered and, where appropriate, utilized.^[8]

Federal regulations provide: 

Unless the IEP [individualized education program] of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that [they] would attend if nondisabled; [and] [i]n selecting the LRE [least restrictive environment], consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services that [they] need.^[9]

Numerous federal courts have issued decisions on the issue of special education in the Least Restrictive Environment. For the most part, these decisions have encouraged integrated education and have established a solid trend in this direction.

Federal courts have consistently supported the principle of educating students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), promoting integrated education and establishing a strong trend toward inclusive settings. 

Early Case Law: 

P.A.R.C. v. Pennsylvania (1972) established a presumption that placement in a general education public school class is generally preferable to placement in a special public school class.^[10]

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) reinforced this view, presuming that placement in a general education public school class with appropriate ancillary services is preferable to placement in a special school class.^[11]

Supreme Court Decisions: 

Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) emphasized that IDEA requires states to educate students with disabilities alongside their nondisabled peers whenever possible.^[12]

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) clarified that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make appropriate progress in light of the child’s circumstances, setting a higher standard for what constitutes a free appropriate public education (FAPE).^[13]

Federal Appeals Courts: 

Dept. of Educ., State of Hawaii v. Katherine D. (1983) affirmed the congressional preference for educating children with disabilities in classrooms with their peers.^[14]

Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District (1981) found that denying access to a general education public school classroom without a compelling educational justification constitutes discrimination.^[15]

Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (1992)underscored that federal law requires school systems to adjust their resources to prevent unnecessary segregation of students with disabilities.^[16]

Prior Burden of Proof for LRE Claims: 

Prior to the ruling by the Supreme Court placing the burden of proof in due process cases on the filing party, Courts consistently placed the burden on school districts to justify decisions that excluded students from general education classrooms.

For instance:

Mavis v. Sobol (1994) ruled that the district failed to justify its decision to exclude the student from a general education classroom.^[17]

Oberti v. Board of Education (1993) held that it would undermine the Act’s presumption in favor of mainstreaming if parents had to prove their child’s worthiness for inclusion, rather than the school district having to justify exclusion. [995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993)]. 

Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel Holland (Rachel H.) (1992)reinforced that the burden of proving a child cannot be successfully educated in a general education classroom lies with the school district.^[18].

These cases collectively illustrate the strong legal trend favoring integrated education and the importance of ensuring that decisions about special education placements meet the standards set forth by IDEA and related jurisprudence.

1. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Sec. 300.114(a)(2); Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56342(b).[↩]
2. 20 U.S.C. Sec.1412(a)(5)(B).[↩]
3. 20 U.S.C. Secs.1400(c)(5)(A) & (D).[↩]
4. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414(d)(1)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. Secs. 300.320(a)(1) & (2).[↩]
5. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV); 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.320(a)(4).[↩]
6. Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56001(g).[↩]
7. Cal. Ed. Code. Sec. 56364.2.[↩]
8. Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56303.[↩]
9. 34 C.F.R. Secs. 300.116(c) & (d).[↩]
10. 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. PA 1972)[↩]
11. 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972)[↩]
12. 458 U.S. 176 (1982)[↩]
13. 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017)[↩]
14. 727 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1983)[↩]
15. 655 F.2d 443 (3rd Cir. 1981)[↩]
16. 789 F. Supp. 1322 (D.N.J. 1992)[↩]
17. 839 F. Supp. 968 (N.D.N.Y. 1994)[↩]
18. 786 F. Supp. 874 (E.D. Cal. 1992)[↩]