Yell Mitchell Louis, Bradley M Renee
University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
Manassas, VA, USA.
J Learn Disabil. 2025 Jul-Aug;58(4):246-256. doi: 10.1177/00222194241305352. Epub 2024 Dec 21.
In 2025, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) will have been the primary law driving the field of special education for 50 years. A contentious area of disagreement has been the relationship between two primary mandates of the law: the obligation of schools to provide a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible students with disabilities and the obligation to place these students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) appropriate to each student's individual needs. The conflict over LRE can be traced throughout the history of IDEA, in debates referenced as "mainstreaming," "regular education initiative," "inclusion," and "full inclusion." In this case, we draw on (a) Congressional intent as shown in the writings of a co-sponsor of the law, (b) the language of the law and regulations, (c) special education rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and other U.S. Courts of Appeals addressing FAPE and LRE, and (d) policy guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. We argue that there is no basis for believing that FAPE and LRE are in conflict. Rather, the FAPE requirement of the IDEA is the primary obligation of school districts, and it sets the parameters for determining the LRE. To believe otherwise represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. We describe how for students eligible under the category of learning disabilities, this perceived conflict has been especially challenging. Historically, the IDEA has made a distinction between high-incidence disabilities, those that occur more frequently, and low-incidence disabilities, those that occur less frequently. At some point, these distinctions morphed into a belief that high-incidence disabilities required less-intensive interventions and were more suited to regular class placement than those students with low-incidence disabilities. This distinction is incorrect. For each student identified as eligible for special education services, the determination of LRE should be an individualized decision based on student needs and where those needs can be best met. This discussion is a critical one for students with learning disabilities and all students with disabilities who may require intensive individualized supports, regardless of prior conceptions of low- and high-disability categories.
到2025年，《残疾人教育法》（IDEA）将成为推动特殊教育领域发展的主要法律达50年之久。该法律的两个主要规定之间的关系一直是一个有争议的分歧领域：学校有义务为符合条件的残疾学生提供免费、适当的公共教育（FAPE），以及有义务将这些学生安置在最适合每个学生个人需求的限制最少的环境（LRE）中。关于LRE的冲突在IDEA的整个历史中都有迹可循，在被称为“主流化”“常规教育倡议”“融合教育”和“完全融合教育”的辩论中都有体现。在这种情况下，我们借鉴了以下几点：（a）该法律的一位共同提案人的著作中所显示的国会意图；（b）法律和法规的措辞；（c）美国最高法院和其他美国上诉法院关于FAPE和LRE的特殊教育裁决；以及（d）美国教育部的政策指导。我们认为，没有理由相信FAPE和LRE存在冲突。相反，IDEA的FAPE要求是学区的主要义务，它为确定LRE设定了参数。否则就代表着对法律的根本误解。我们描述了对于符合学习障碍类别条件的学生来说，这种被认为存在的冲突是如何特别具有挑战性的。从历史上看，IDEA对高发病率残疾（即那些更频繁发生的残疾）和低发病率残疾（即那些较少发生的残疾）进行了区分。在某个时候，这些区分演变成一种观念，即高发病率残疾所需的干预强度较低，比低发病率残疾的学生更适合安置在常规班级。这种区分是不正确的。对于每个被确定有资格获得特殊教育服务的学生，LRE的确定应该是基于学生需求以及这些需求在哪里能够得到最佳满足的个性化决定。对于学习障碍学生以及所有可能需要强化个性化支持的残疾学生来说，无论之前对低残疾和高残疾类别的概念如何，这场讨论都至关重要。
