Integrated co-teaching classroom qualifies as ‘least restrictive’ setting for student |
On Board Online • August 12, 2013
By Pilar Sokol
Deputy General Counsel
A recent federal appellate court decision involving a classroom that combined general education and special education students addressed the alleged restrictiveness of such a setting and set the standard for resolving such cases.
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles a disabled child eligible to receive services under that law to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) in accordance with an individualized education program (IEP) developed to meet a child’s individualized educational needs. Parents may challenge a school district’s alleged failure to comply with this requirement by filing a due process complaint.
That was the case in M.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ. where the parents of an autistic child claimed, in part, that the district’s recommendation to place their child M.W. in an integrated co-teaching (ICT) classroom violated the IDEA’s LRE provisions. A ruling in their favor would have entitled the parents to reimbursement of tuition costs that they incurred when they decided to place M.W. in a private school based partly on their conclusion that the ICT classroom was an overly restrictive environment.
Although an impartial hearing officer found in favor of the parents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the State Review Officer’s ruling that the parents are not entitled to tuition reimbursement. The ruling is significant because the Second Circuit has jurisdiction over all of New York State.
The ICT class followed a general education curriculum and was staffed by a special education teacher and a general education teacher. The class could have included as many as 12 students with IEPs alongside general education students.
The parents claimed the classroom was more like a segregated special education classroom than a regular classroom with supports. The Second Circuit disagreed, finding that a classroom with ICT services may be a placement that falls somewhere in between. Without deciding the issue, the court also noted that state regulations, M.W.’s IEP, and the administrative decisions underlying the appeal before it characterize ICT as a service within a general education environment rather than a special education classroom.
As a result, the Second Circuit did not use the test it normally uses for assessing LRE compliance when students are placed in a special education classroom all or some of the time. Instead, the appropriate inquiry was whether placing M.W. “in a general education environment with a regular curriculum alongside typically developing peers but supplemented with a special education teacher was overly restrictive for M.W.”
Ruling against the parents, the Second Circuit rejected their argument that the ICT classroom was inappropriate because M.W. would be learning alongside as many as 12 other IEP students, although previously he had been educated exclusively with non-disabled peers and shown he could “make it,” in his parents’ words, in a less restrictive setting with support. The evidence supported the prior conclusions of the State Review Officer and the court below that M.W.’s placement in an ICT classroom was appropriate and reasonable. Moreover, M.W. was not entitled to a regular classroom with him as the only IEP student.
Finding the parents’ additional claims to also be without merit, the Second Circuit denied their claim for reimbursement.