Search results

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) receive educational and related services within a continuum of placement options per the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. The continuum of placement options ranges from fully included general education type classrooms to more restrictive environments such as alternative education settings, residential facilities, and schools within secure juvenile justice facilities. A specific placement option is based on the individualized academic and social needs of the student and includes the least restrictive environment to meet those needs. After the IFSP or IEP team develops a student's IFSP or IEP, then the team makes a placement decision. Multiple factors influence initial placement decisions including an overall reluctance to identify students with E/BD, false positives and negatives, co-morbidity, and disproportionality. Other factors may influence a temporary or long-term change in placement such as inappropriate student behavior and/or academic failure. No matter the placement, the educational services provided within each should be evidence-based, implemented with fidelity, be individualized, and be socially valid.

States that historically, students with disabilities in the public schools in the USA were subjected to discrimination in the form of segregation from non‐disabled students. Also reports that much of this discrimination has subsided in recent years owing to successful advocacy by parents and community organizations before the Congress of the United States and both the federal and state judiciary. Reveals that national legislation was created so as to protect the education rights of such students and the courts have provided tests for their integration into school systems. Notes that, currently, there is some concern that this advocacy has gone too far and that court decisions authorizing “full inclusion” misinterpret the full extent of the law. Examines the scope of education for disabled children and provides a legal analysis of the educational placement of students with disabilities in the “least restrictive environment”.

Different interpretations of what constitutes educational equity have shaped public policies and practices for students with disabilities over the past century. These differences are apparent in the clash between access to education as defined in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), and access to more intensive educational services which smaller special education classrooms are designed to provide. This chapter examines these differences within the context of how services have historically been provided and how students have been assessed and have achieved academically. Specifically, this chapter also describes relevant literature and current data related to services and outcomes for youth with disabilities. We describe academic and behavioral interventions and strategies that have been used in different settings. We conclude by offering recommendations for future research in developing effective interventions to help close the achievement gap and move toward true educational equity.

The essential obligation of special educators under the law known as individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) is to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all students identified as having a disability. A secondary and related obligation is to provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE). To assist a student's individualized education program (IEP) or placement team to determine the setting in which a student will receive a FAPE, the IDEA mandates that school districts have available a continuum of placements (CAP) in which the team will choose the least restrictive and appropriate setting in which the student will receive their special education and related services. Our purpose in this chapter is to explain these requirements and why following the chronological order of determining FAPE and then LRE when developing a student's special education program is critical to meeting the IDEA's programming and placement mandates. We also explain why determining FAPE in the LRE cannot be accomplished without using the CAP.

The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act address factors to consider in educating students with and without disabilities together to the maximum extent appropriate. This chapter is designed to examine the origins and evolving interpretations of the LRE concept in special education policy and practice. Discussion traces the evolution of the concept as a legal principle, and reviews its application to educational strategies for students with learning and behavioral disabilities in contemporary schools. In conclusion, the future of the LRE concept is addressed in light of competing policies promoting presumptive inclusive education, and publicly funded school choice programs promoting greater involvement of parents in choosing where their children with and without disabilities should be educated.

Before discussing educational placement issues related to learners with special needs, definitions related to inclusion need to be presented. It is important to note there is no universally accepted definition of inclusion; thus, this term holds different meanings to different individuals (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Furthermore, the terminology has also changed over the decades (McLeskey, 2007). During the 1960s through the early 1980s, the term mainstreaming was used. The terms of integration and regular education initiative were used throughout the 1980s. From the late 1980s through the present, the preferable term has been inclusion. Schwartz (2005) optimistically stated that an inclusive program is “one that provides educational intervention to students with and without disabilities in a common setting and provides appropriate levels of instruction and support to meet the needs of all students” (p. 240). Others have defined inclusion “as the practice of educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom setting” (Zinkil & Gilbert, 2000, p. 225). The meaning of inclusion has been defined differently from the term mainstreaming, which has been defined as “when students…earn their way into the general educational classroom…with minimal, if any, special education assistance” (Zinkil & Gilbert, 2000, p. 225). For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of inclusion provided by Zinkil and Gilbert (2000) will be used.

Students with and at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) or behavioral difficulties have unique and heterogeneous needs that affect their academic, behavioral, and social skills. As such, many of these students are served in more restrictive settings (e.g., residential facilities) than their peers with other disabilities. However, there is little research to document the characteristics of students who are served outside of their neighborhood school. In this chapter, we describe a study of students with and at-risk for EBD served in a residential facility in the southeastern United States. Descriptive analyses of the behavioral, academic, and social characteristics of 18 students enrolled at the facility suggest that, on average, students scored above average for problem behaviors, below average on academic measures, and below average for social skills. Linear regression analyses suggest that age did not predict performance and that certain behavioral indices predicted student achievement on both academic and social skills measures. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

Federal and state laws exert an important influence on the education of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The most important of these laws is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. States and school districts must adhere to the requirements of IDEA when educating students with disabilities in special education programs. In addition to IDEA, other federal and state laws also affect special education programs for students with EBD. Two other important areas are laws that address (a) supervisory responsibilities of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders and (b) issues of bullying in schools. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and to examine the ways that this and other important laws affect the education of students with EBD and their teachers.