As an Education Advocate across the country, I see everything when it comes to the IEP process and special education. No matter where you live, there are a number of challenges which seem to be inherent to the public school system. And the one phrase that seems to continue serve as a bone of contention for parents is found in the current interpretation and meaning of the statement: “LEAST RESTRICTIVE”.
Today, parents consistently hear this when they are seeking additional services and supports for their children. Whether it be in the form of 1:1 instructional assistants, targeted instruction within a resource room setting, or in rare circumstances, when the intervention process highlights an alternative placement. Often, when parents request more individualized forms of specially designed instruction, outside of the fomulaic programs and services, one receives a response such as “We want to maintain the least restrictive model”. or “We are thinking of your child and his / her access to the least restrictive setting” and followed by a clear “NO” to the request.
Examples this week as I navigated the IEP process included:
PARENT REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTES PER WEEK FOR ACADEMIC SERVICES: “We want to assure your son has access to his General Education classroom; additional minutes will take away from his peers”.
PARENTING REQUESTING a 1:1 PARA: “By doing so, we would be creating a dependency relationship on the adult, and this would create a more restrictive placement”.
This is in direct contrast to the original intention of the laws guiding IDEA and FAPE: Where parents had to fight for access against institutional exclusionary practices. Back in the 1970’s, under the actions of congress as dictated in PL 94-142 [Education for All Handicapped Children Act] the following was often the standard: “Before EHA, many children were denied access to education and opportunities to learn. In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.”
“Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 7.5 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2020-21 school year.” [Ed.gov]
In contrast, now we see the notion of “least restrictive” being used against parents when they are seeking additional services. It feels as if school districts are using this framework against parents; so I ask, “When it comes to least restrictive, who are we protecting our children from? “
From my lens, there are situations when the “least restrictive” is clearly placement in the General Education setting. In fact, this is the golden rule in most situations; it’s the law. However, within conversations between parents and districts in pursuit of additional specially designed instruction or supports, I hear this way too often. And in most situations, this phrase is used as a barrier when the request for additional supports has financial implications.
Don’t get me wrong: I am not advocating for going back to exclusive placements creating a true lack of equity. But I also see how this statement is often used as a filter to avoid additional services.
Again, I am asking the question, when considering “Least Restrictive”, who are we protecting our children from?
Just saying!
