Educators find themselves faced with making decisions that affect student achievement on a daily basis. Decision making in the best interest of students becomes more difficult because of the conflicting rights of students. While all students residing within the United States (U.S.) are all entitled to equal educational opportunities, children who receive special education services bring an additional set of educational expectations and mandates to the classroom. Building principals and classroom teachers are faced with deciding a course of action that ensures equal educational opportunities for every student to pass through the door, yet specific mandates for special education students often take precedent over those of general education students. For example, the requirement that a student be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE) results in children with significant emotional and behavioral concerns taking so much of the mainstream teacher’s attention and time for instruction that the general education students’ level of education suffers. The teacher is caught between meeting the requirements of the special education student’s IEP (Individual Education Plan) and providing an appropriate education for the remaining 24 students in the classroom. Why should the needs of one student negate the rights of the rest of the classroom? What are the effects on teachers and students – both typical and those with a learning disability – when the LRE trump card is played?
All children are entitled to an educational environment conducive to learning. All children should be safe, feel valued, and have a sense of belonging. Students placed in a classroom expect to have (and should expect) a teacher who is responsive to their educational needs. Frequently, this responsiveness includes also meeting students’ basic needs of emotional and physical well-being which are at the base of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Abram Maslow posited that people were motivated by needs. His original five stage model from 1943 and 1954 included (in ascending order) physiological needs, safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization ("Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs," 2014). According to Maslow, people must satisfy one level of needs before they can move up into the next level. With that in mind, students subjected to unsafe behavior are unable to move out of the safety level of needs; therefore, they cannot move to satisfying self-esteem needs of achievement, mastery, and recognition ("Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs," 2014).
In thinking about competing rights, one that immediately comes to the forefront is the rights of special education students to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) versus the rights of the typical students to an appropriate education. “Children with disabilities are to be educated with children who are not disabled to the maximum extend appropriate” (McCarthy, Cambron-McCabe, & Eckes, 2014, p. 178). The authors go on to point out that “educational and non-educational benefits for each placement should be assessed, including the effect the child with a disability may have on classmates and staff members” (p. 179).
It seems that in many instances, the rights of the special education students supersede those of their typically developing peers and create a double bind for both students and teachers. Consider the following examples of double binds encountered by students and teachers when LRE comes into play: Special Education students want to attend general education classrooms but are unable to maintain the pace of their peers. Inversely, general education students are supporting special education students and falling behind their peer group by doing so. Depending on which side of the bind encountered, a set of students does not achieve at a level commensurate with their abilities. Teachers have to adhere to a special education student’s IEP and concurrently teach all of the mandated state standards to the entire classroom. All requirements are included in teacher evaluations, which determine teacher effectiveness and performance pay results. Some teachers take time out of teaching the majority of students to remediate, placate, and manage a special education student. Other teachers spend more time with the majority of their students, leaving the student in need of special education services to either figure it out or fail. The double binds created by the conflicting rights of students leave both teachers and students on the losing end of education.
Framework for Understanding
Horace Mann contended that education was the right of every child and that it was the state’s responsibility to ensure that education (Webb, p. 143). Mann’s vision and influence are the basis of the public education system in America today (Webb, pp. 142-144). The United States has gone to great lengths to ensure students are educated, with many states making attendance mandatory for all children. Arizona’s requirement is that all children between the ages of 6 and 16 attend school (Arizona State Legislature, 15-803, n.d.). The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures equality for all Americans, including children ("Primary Documents in American," 2013). This amendment was applied to education with the famous court case, Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka in 1954 ("Teaching With Documents: Documents," n.d.), overturning the “separate but equal” 1898 ruling of Plessey v. Ferguson, making it mandatory that students of color be allowed to enroll in any school and ending segregation (Webb, p. 282-284). The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) guaranteed that educational opportunities were available to all students, regardless of race, color, sex, or national origin ("Types of Educational Opportunities," n.d.). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 §504, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically Titles II and III, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1973 (IDEA) were enacted with the purpose of ensuring that identified students were educated in a non-discriminatory manner, yet still provided with services that met their individual needs ("Types of Educational Opportunities," n.d.).
Prior to IDEA, students with disabilities were segregated and isolated from their typically developing peers, negating the possibility of being educated in the rich learning environment provided in the general education setting. Within IDEA is the goal of inclusion of special education students into the general education setting is expressed within the provisions of LRE (McLaughlin, 2010, pp. 268-269). The life work of Lev Vygotsky supported the idea that children need the modeling of their peers to understand better the nuances of social interactions involved in play or using their words to communicate wants and needs (McLeod, 2014). Those needs are better served in the general education setting. As the director of a district preschool that serves children ages 3-5 with developmental delays, as well as many years of classroom experience as a teacher, I have seen the gains made by these children, as well as the general education students, when they are placed in the LRE with typically developing peers. There is absolutely no denying the positive outcomes for children when allowed to learn together. However, there are instances where LRE for special education students puts the rights of general education students in jeopardy.
One instance where the question of competing rights arises is when the behaviors of the special education child cause a disruption to the learning environment that would not be tolerated from a typical child, sacrificing the learning environment for all, including the teacher. The behavior of typically developing children cannot disrupt the learning environment; they are disciplined and removed from the classroom and/or school setting. While it is understood that some children cannot maintain their behavior – due to no fault of their own (it is referred to a manifestation of their disability) – is it fair to allow them to disrupt the learning of the other twenty-four or so students in the classroom? In reviewing the local school district policy concerning special education, the identification and IEP processes are identified, as well as the parents’ rights, student placement in LRE, and discipline process for special education students ("I-2361, IHB-R: Special Instructional," n.d.). However, there is no mention of identifying or discussion of “the effect the child with a disability may have on classmates and staff members” (McCarthy, Cambron-McCabe, & Eckes, 2014, p. 179). The deficit in this policy results in problems for teachers and students.
Scenario to Consider
Without considering the effect the child receiving special education services has on the learning environment of others, here is an example of the type of thing that happens. During the 2013-14 school year, there was a non-verbal child who was prone to biting, hitting, scratching, kicking, and otherwise physically acting out towards his peers and teachers. The student was placed in the general education setting for his kindergarten year. As another perspective to the situation, the classroom was an ELD classroom, meaning the students were not only responsible to learn the same content as other children; they were required to become proficient in the English Language. The teacher knew only that the child had an IEP and some behavioral concerns. The student also attended extended school year (ESY) to learn to use his augmentative communication (augcom) device so that he could begin the year with a means to communicate with his classmates and teacher. There was a belief that the child was acting out due to frustration with not being able to communicate and that learning to use the augcom device would alleviate his violent outbursts; that was not the case.
Within the first few weeks of school, he had bitten, hit, and otherwise hurt his teacher, as well as other students, and had his augcom device taken away because he was not using it properly (very little training was offered to the special education or general education teachers with regards to implementation and use of the device). In response to his behaviors, the team decided to put him on a shortened day and managed to get a paraprofessional to “be available” (not in the classroom, but at least on campus somewhere) for when he had a meltdown and could no longer function in the regular classroom setting. Additionally, the parent agreed to come remove him from school when the child was unable to regain control and reenter the classroom environment. Day after day, the teacher has been left to figure out how to help this little one maintain himself, keep the other students and herself safe from harm, and still manage and teach a classroom full of kindergarteners.
Throughout the school year, this 5-year-old continued to have outbursts that result in teacher and peer injury. Yet, Student Services refused to alternatively place the student or provide consistent classroom support in the form of a paraprofessional, all in the name of LRE. The student completed the school year in the general education setting – regardless of the disruption or injury to the other students and teacher. His “right” to LRE superseded not only the right of his peers to an appropriate education in a safe learning environment, but also the right of his teacher to be safe from physical injury and to be able to provide the educational experiences kinder students are entitled to and need in order to achieve mastery of grade level content.
Outcome and Recommendation
The teacher in the above scenario has resigned her position and does not plan to return to public education; her thoughts were that she should not have had to endure the injuries sustained to her (she has scars from her experiences the last school year), nor should her other students have had to go through this type of experience. She plans to open her own preschool, where she can have some input as to who attends, what the acceptable behaviors are, and what must be done to protect her students from unnecessary harm. The LRE of the child in this scenario has been changed to a self-contained special education classroom where his learning needs can be met. It is hoped that his past classmates will have the opportunity for an equitable education that meets their needs and they are able to recoup some of what they previously missed in the coming school year.
In trying to research this topic further, there are many cases where parents of students with disabilities have filed OCR (Office of Civil Rights) complaints and/or violation of due process suits. However, there do not seem to be cases filed by parents of typical children whose right to education has been impeded or impinged upon in the name of LRE for a disabled child. Placing special education students in LRE is mandated by law; there are many cases where appropriate placements results in beneficial outcomes for both special education and typical students. However, when things go sideways, it seems that in the case of competing rights between special education students and their typical peers, the rights of the student on an IEP trump…but should they? Until someone steps forward and champions the rights of general education students to an equal opportunity to learn, without disruptions brought about by adherence to LRE as stipulated by IDEA, both teachers and students are bound to lose.
References
15-803. School attendance; exemptions; definitions. (n.d.). Retrieved from Arizona State Legislature website: http://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00803.htm
I-2361, IHB-R: Special instructional programs. (n.d.). Retrieved from Arizona School Board Association website: http://policy.ctspublish.com/asba/public/lpext.dll?f=templates &fn=main-hit-h.htm&2.0
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology. org/maslow.html
McCarthy, M. M., Cambron-McCabe, N. H., & Eckes, S. (2014). Public school law: Teachers' and students' rights (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.nau.edu/ehost/
McLeod, S. (2014). Lev Vygotsky. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Primary documents in American history: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (2013, November 18). Retrieved from Library of Congress website: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html
Teaching with documents: Documents related to Brown v. Board of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/
Types of educational opportunities discrimination. (n.d.). Retrieved from The United States Department of Justice website: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/types.php
Webb, L. D. (2006). The history of American education: a great American experiment. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
