Measuring Pupil Progress toward the Least Restrictive Alternative

1979 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 81-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Jenkins ◽  
Stanley L. Deno ◽  
Phyllis K. Mirkin
Keyword(s):  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Regular Classroom ◽  
Data Systems ◽  
Measurement Systems ◽  
Program Success ◽  
Special Education Program ◽  
Restrictive Environment ◽  
Least Restrictive Alternative ◽  
Progress Measurement

Urgent discussions of how to measure student progress toward special education program goals have begun to appear with greater frequency. The factors that seem to be most influential concerning pupil progress measurement are those associated with PL 94–142. Now, IEP's must be written that include specific objectives and time lines for monitoring program success. In addition, the “least restrictive environment” requirement implies that objectives be written, and progress be monitored relative to the skills required for placement and maintenance in the regular classroom. The present paper outlines the uses of pupil progress measurement, the desirable characteristics of progress measurement systems, and includes an evaluation of the adequacy of currently available data systems. Finally, two relatively recent alternatives to pupil progress measurement are recommended.

Special Education Placement: Is it What You Know or Where You Live?

1989 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 459-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard P. Blackman
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Regular Classroom ◽  
School Buildings ◽  
Special Education Placement ◽  
Regular School ◽  
Regular Class ◽  
Class Placement ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Danielson and Bellamy's article on federal data on segregated placement of students with disabilities (see pp. 448–455 of this issue) points out the failings in many situations to live up to the intent of Public Law 94–142, which clearly sets forth a presumption in favor of regular class placement in regular school buildings for children with disabilities. The need to eliminate geographic and funding restrictions to placement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment is stressed. Realistic but affirmative action and closer scrutiny of demonstration projects that have successfully integrated children with various disabilities into the regular classroom should be the focus of efforts.

Criteria for Defining the Regular Classroom as the Least Restrictive Environment for LD Students

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy E. Heron ◽  
Michael E. Skinner
Keyword(s):  
Social Acceptance ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Children And Youth ◽  
Regular Classroom ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Considerable Time ◽  
Teacher Student ◽  
Initial Placement ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Members of placement teams expend considerable time and effort on determining least restrictive environments for learning disabled children and youth. Unfortunately, the placement team must use criteria which are vague and subject to interpretation. The purpose of this paper is to delineate three observable and measurable variables in the regular classroom—response opportunity, teacher-student interaction, and social acceptance—which the team can use to make the initial placement decision and to evaluate educational progress in the future.

PL 94-142 and the Least Restrictive Alternative: An Interim Progress Report for Educators

1979 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 60-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted L. Miller ◽  
Harvey N. Switzky
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Educational Environment ◽  
Progress Report ◽  
Handicapped Children ◽  
Education Practice ◽  
Social Ecological ◽  
The Social ◽  
Restrictive Environment ◽  
Least Restrictive Alternative

The concept of the least restrictive environment (or alternative) was reviewed as it evolved in law and in special education practice. A distinction was drawn between the concepts of mainstreaming and the least restrictive environment. Mainstreaming refers to placing handicapped youngsters as much as possible in educational situations with nonhandicapped youngsters. The least restrictive environment is a legal abstraction which refers to placing handicapped children in an educational environment that is most suitable for their programmatic needs. Concern was voiced about the multiple bases for implementation of the least restrictive environment notion. These bases necessarily include simultaneous references to the philosophy of normalization, to PL 94-142, and to modes of instruction that optimize learning in all the social-ecological environments that handicapped children inhabit.

The Role of Council of Administrators of Special Education

1979 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
Jack Lamb ◽  
Leonard C. Burrello
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Special Education Administrators ◽  
Handicapped Children ◽  
Administrative Position ◽  
Delivery Of Services ◽  
Restrictive Environment ◽  
Education Administrators

This article describes the role of the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) in their support of special education administrators in the context of the aftermath of P. L. 94-142. The forces and factors that are affecting the role incumbent in the special education administrative position are presented in ways in which CASE is attempting to serve its membership in a period of disequilibrium and change. The article is based upon both solicited and unsolicited comments from administrators from around the country. It highlights past and future activities that CASE is seeking to develop and implement in support of leadership persons in delivery of services of all handicapped children in the least restrictive environment.

scholarly journals Least restrictive alternative – advance statements and the new mental health legislation

2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 246-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Atkinson ◽  
H. C. Garner
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Advance Statements ◽  
Restrictive Environment ◽  
The Patient’S View ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Least Restrictive Alternative

Proposals for new mental health legislation make the case for using the ‘least restrictive alternative’ (Scottish Executive, 2001) and the ‘least restrictive environment’ (Department of Health & Home Office, 2000) as guiding principles in deciding the management and treatment of the patient. This appears to be the case made for introducing compulsory treatment in the community. The patient living in the community, while maintained on medication, rather than the hospital would appear to be defined as on the ‘least restrictive alternative’. This, however, takes only a limited approach to what is ‘restrictive’, which should be interpreted more widely, including the patient's view as well as that of clinicians and policy makers. Thus, a patient may see it as less restrictive during an acute phase to be in hospital and not on medication, than in the community but on medication. It is likely, given our knowledge of patients' attitudes to medication (Eastwood & Pugh, 1997), that many patients will prefer to be on oral medication rather than depot, which they see as less restrictive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document