In 2025, the Individuals with Disabilities Education (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.

中文翻译：

---

《残疾人教育法》：阐明免费适当的公共教育与限制最少的环境之间的关系


到 2025 年，残障人士教育 （IDEA） 将成为推动特殊教育领域 50 年的主要法律。一个有争议的分歧领域是法律的两个主要任务之间的关系：学校有义务为符合条件的残疾学生提供免费的适当公共教育 （FAPE），以及将这些学生安置在适合每个学生个人需求的限制最少的环境 （LRE） 中的义务。围绕 LRE 的冲突可以追溯到 IDEA 的整个历史，在被称为“主流化”、“常规教育倡议”、“包容性”和“完全包容性”的辩论中。在这种情况下，我们借鉴了 （a） 法律共同提案人著作中所示的国会意图，（b） 法律法规的语言，（c） 美国最高法院和其他美国上诉法院针对 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，它设定了确定 LRE 的参数。不相信代表了对法律的根本误解。我们描述了对于符合学习障碍类别条件的学生来说，这种感知到的冲突如何特别具有挑战性。从历史上看，IDEA 区分了高发生率残疾（发生频率较高的残疾）和低发生率残疾（发生频率较低的残疾）。 在某个时候，这些区别演变成一种信念，即高发生率残疾需要强度较低的干预，并且比那些低发生率残疾的学生更适合常规班级安排。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最能满足这些需求的地方的个性化决定。对于有学习障碍的学生和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，这次讨论都至关重要。