Parents’ Request for More Mainstreaming
Parents of students with disabilities often request more mainstreaming for their
children than your IEP team feels is required. When this happens, the team
faces a difficult task: making and communicating its decision in compliance with
the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), so that those parents won’t file due
process complaints.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
IDEA strongly favors mainstreaming students with disabilities. The law requires
you to assure to the maximum extent appropriate that a student who’s disabled is
educated with students who aren’t disabled. So you must first consider placing
the student in a regular classroom, with appropriate supplemental aids and
services – such as a teacher who moves from class to class with the student, or
“resource room” support – to assist him in that environment.
The law says you may place a student with a disability in self-contained special
education classes or a separate school only if you can’t educate her in the
general curriculum with the use of supplemental aids and services. But before
you do so, you must consider all possible supplemental aids and services
appropriate for the student. If the student’s parents ask for a due process
hearing, you’ll have to prove that you attempted to mainstream the student to the
maximum extent appropriate for that child.
The issue of whether – and how much – to mainstream usually comes down to
two questions:
1) Can education in a regular classroom, with the use of supplemental
aids and services, be achieved satisfactorily?
2) If the answer to question 1 is no: Has the team given the student the
maximum appropriate mainstreaming opportunities wherever possible?
9 RULES TO FOLLOW BEFORE REJECTING PARENTS’ REQUESTS FOR
MORE MAINSTREAMING
Before you reject parents’ requests for more mainstreaming, follow each of the
rules below. Doing so will help ensure that you made the required effort to
mainstream and should reduce the chance that parents will file a due process
complaint against you.
Rule #1: Get Parents’ Input
IDEA requires you to consider parents’ input on what they want their child to gain
from the level of mainstreaming they’re requesting. If you know what the parents’
objectives are in seeking a higher level of mainstreaming than you’re offering,
you can make your team’s recommendations in the IEP responsive to their
needs. And that alone may keep your team and the school out of a costly due
process hearing.
Don’t be afraid of getting parents’ input on what they want their child to gain.
While IDEA requires you to get input from the parents, it doesn’t empower
parents to compel an IEP team to institute a specific teaching program.
Rule #2: Consider Placement in the General Curriculum First
You must first consider placing the student in a regular classroom with
supplemental aids and services. Never assume that a student with a disability
has to be educated outside his regular education classes. An assumption like
that can get you into legal trouble.
Rule #3: Consider Curriculum Modifications
IDEA requires you to consider using different types of curricula or modifying the
existing curricula to enable a student with a disability to participate in the general
curriculum.
Rule #4: Consider ‘Parallel Instruction’ with One-to-One Aide or Itinerant
Teacher
IDEA also requires you to consider offering a student with a disability “parallel
instruction” during regular education classes. A one-to-one aide or itinerant
teacher gives parallel instruction to the student at the same time as the regular
teacher is instructing the regular education class. (An itinerant teacher is a
teacher who stays with a student throughout the day, moving with him from class
to class as needed.) During parallel instruction, the itinerant teacher shapes the
student’s workload based on what the regular education teacher is teaching,
what the student’s IEP goals and objectives are, and what the student can
handle. Also, the itinerant teacher will sometimes teach the student different
material from that which the regular education teacher is teaching, or the same
material, with modifications.
Rule #5: Consider ‘Resource Room’ Support
Next, you must consider whether the student could derive educational benefit
with so-called resource room support. Resource rooms are instructional centers
that provide individual and small group instruction in place of regular classroom
instruction. IDEA considers resource room instruction to be a supplemental
service. So pulling a student out of class for resource room support isn’t
considered the same as placing that student in a segregated special education
classroom.
Rule #6: Train Regular Education Teacher
Don’t cite untrained staff as a reason not to mainstream. According to IDEA, if
the student’s regular education teacher has no experience teaching autistic
children the district must provide her with the necessary training and support so
that the student can benefit from her teaching.
As part of her training, the regular education teacher should be required to meet
with a special educator and to attend IEP team meetings so that she can learn
the student’s needs. Also, provide the teacher with a copy of the student’s IEP
and access to the student’s file, including a list of the modifications and
supplemental aids or services, if any, that were proposed for her class. And give
the regular education teacher the names, phone numbers, and Web sites of
experts she can contact is she has questions or wants to do more research.
Rule #7: Balance Academic Benefits, Nonacademic Benefits, and Student’s
Behavior
After considering the options required by IDEA, your team’s final decision on
whether and how much to mainstream must be based on the student’s abilities
and needs. IDEA says that you must not base your decision solely on what kind
of disability a student has, the magnitude of the disability, the availability of
special education and related services, how those services would be delivered,
availability of space, or administrative convenience. In other words, don’t
assume that just because a student is autistic, he must be placed in a selfcontained special education class.
To make a final decision on how much mainstreaming to provide, an IEP team
must carefully balance three factors:
1) Academic benefits. The first factor to consider is how much academic benefit
the student will get from a placement in the general curriculum. You gauge
this by examining the student’s test scores, as well as expert evaluations and
observations of teachers, psychologists, and parents.
2) Nonacademic benefits. Even though a student may make more academic
progress in a self-contained classroom, that fact alone doesn’t mean you
must reject a parent’s request for more mainstreaming. You must also weigh
the nonacademic benefits the student will receive from socializing with
nondisabled peers.
3) Student’s negative effect on others. IDEA permits you to consider a student’s
disruptive behavior when considering a parent’s request for more
mainstreaming. If a student threatens other students or teachers or disrupts
the class, you must implement a “behavior management plan,” in conjunction
with his IEP, to help him modify his behavior so that he can function in the
general curriculum. If, after implementing a behavior management plan, the
student’s behavior doesn’t improve, you can seek a segregated placement for
the student.
Rule #8: Don’t Consider Cost
Don’t turn down a request for more mainstreaming based on its cost. But if
there’s a less expensive aid or service that can meet the student’s needs, you
needn’t go with the more expensive version.
Rule #9: Write Decision into IEP
IDEA requires you to spell out your team’s decision on the parents’
mainstreaming request in the student’s IEP. In other words, you must write into
the IEP an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child won’t participate
with nondisabled students in the general curriculum or in extracurricular or other
nonacademic activities. Include the mainstreaming options considered but
rejected and the reasons you rejected them.
Writing the team’s decision, the options considered, and the reasons the team
rejected those options into the student’s IEP will satisfy the IDEA requirement to
notify parents in writing of the team’s placement decision. Just be sure to give
parents their copy of the IEP a reasonable amount of time before the start date
for the student’s special education services so that they have time to comment if
they need to.
Explain Mainstreaming Decision in IEP
Here’s Model Language you can adapt and use when drafting an explanation of
your IEP team’s decision on parents’ request for more mainstreaming. Your
statement on mainstreaming should do five things: 1) state your decision on the
parents’ mainstreaming request; 2) say that you’ve complied with the
mainstreaming requirements of IDEA, the Department of Education’s regulations
interpreting the law, and any relevant state laws; 3) spell out to parents why and
how their child will meet his goals and short-term objectives (that is, get a FAPE)
in the proposed setting; 4) emphasize which regular education program benefits,
if any, the student will get; and 5) explain the options you considered and the
reasons you rejected them. Insert language like this that fits your situation in the
section of your IEP forms reserved for explanations of placement decision.
Recommended Placement
In view of Adam’s records, test scores, and evidence discussed at the IEP
meetings on January 15 and 20, 2000, the IEP team has decided that Adam
should be placed in a self-contained special education classroom. This
placement will best enable Adam to derive educational benefit and receive a
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) pursuant to the IDEA, pub. L. No 10517; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (1997), and the state and federal regulations
interpreting that law.
A self-contained classroom placement is appropriate for Adam. Because Adam
suffers from mild autism, he requires intensive social skills training in a classroom
setting with a student-to-teacher ratio of no more that 8:1. The placement we
recommend will ensure that Adam receives instruction in a setting with no more
than an 8:1 student-to-teacher ratio, thus enabling him to meet his goals and
short-term objectives (IEP § 3.2) and get a FAPE.
A self-contained classroom placement will also enable Adam to get the intensive
speech-language therapy required for him to meet his goals and short-term
objectives.
Mainstreaming Provided
Under the proposed placement, Adam will be mainstreamed for lunch, recess,
and art and gym classes. Our proposed placement thus ensures that Adam will
interact with nondisabled peers to the greatest extent possible, as required by
IDEA.
Options Considered and Rejected
We considered and rejected a request by Adam’s parents, Jane and John Doe,
to place Adam in a regular education classroom with supplemental aids and
services. In the studied judgment of the IEP team, this setting would not provide
Adam with an educational benefit. The regular education placement requested
by Jane and John Doe would have a student-to-teacher ration of at least 25:1. In
this placement, Adam would not be able to get the intensive speech-language
therapy needed for him to meet his goals and short-term objectives.
Source: IEP Team Trainer