Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE )

Student:
Professor:
Course:
Date:FAPE is an acronym for ‘Free and Appropriate Public Education’ for all disabled learners. It is currently known as IDEA. FAPE includes a suitable pre-school, secondary, and middle education that accepts funds from the public and it is under its control. An individualized school program called IEP is meant to provide students that are determined to receive special education with instructions, support and other services that meet their specific needs. However, these learners must be between the brackets of between 3-21 years. The parents must provide consent for the assessing of the kids since they are included as part of the IEP process (Douvanis et al., p.33). They also should get course rights from the safeguards of the procedures. The Congress regulates the action of this body. FAPE has several components like free education, meeting of the standards set by education agencies, provision of appropriate schooling via IEP implementation and parent participation.
It is pertinent to note that the above two concepts are related. Learning for children is affected by the environmental setting. Therefore, these two concepts are inter-dependent. They operate together in the sense that ‘Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)’ may or not happen in the ’least restrictive environment (LRE).’ This normally depends on the provisions of both State and the Federal Law.
Ramification of a Court Case involving ‘FAPE’
The case ‘Board of Education v. Rowley’ was the first one concerning special education as well as for the interpretation of FAPE by the Supreme Court.

The School District was favored in the case by ruling that additional provisions were not necessary for maximizing the education for the students, only enough in promoting adequate progress/growth. The Court’s decision led to the development of what is called the ‘Rowley Standard.’ This is a dual part test that is used in different courts to decide if a learning center has delivered a FAPE as IDEA requires. The standard seeks to know whether or not a particular school has complied with various procedures of the Statute. Again, it seeks to establish if the individualized program of education developed via the process of the Act is reasonably calculated such that the child will intellectually benefit (Tucker and Poitras, p29)
The ‘Least Restrictive Environment’
The IDEA requirement is that, when necessary, learners with certain incapacities should school together with the non-disabled peers in the same setting. It also recognizes the fact that the individual needs of some incapacitated learners cannot be met in classroom addressing general education. A restrictive atmosphere is appropriate when access to this learning schoolroom is acquainted with support materials and services that meet their specific individual needs. To facilitate learning in the ‘LRE’, school districts should provide a variety of substitute placements in meeting their requirements so that several options are available when establishing any LRE for a student. The continuum will be as follows: ‘General Education Classroom’-Special Schoolroom-Special School-Institution.’ Furthermore, there are some issues that are addressed via LRE. First, there is the Placement of the students to the nearby school if he or she was not under the special education program (Crockett et al., p46). This only applies if the IEP of the student does not require otherwise. Furthermore, there is Non-Academic programming that allows for the extension of LRE to settings that are non-academic, protection of the interests of the peers that are not disabled if their counterparts are disruptive by making restrictive environments for the incapacitated and finally, the participation of the special education members in the general curriculum.
The ramification of Roncker v Walter (1993) Case.
In the Appellate Court, the judge ruled in favor of Roncker Family. According to this Court, the decisions for placement must be done by an individual. Furthermore, the case ruling postulated that any learning region that placed kids in a prearranged setting of a school depending on the disability of the child was in contravention of the federal law. The case was founded on the ‘portability’ principle. This concept argues that if an appropriate service currently given in a setting that is segregated can always be feasibly delivered in a unified background, it would be undesirable to offer it in such isolated environment. The Rocker’s son desired specific services due to his incapacity, and it was ruled out that he could only get them in a setting that was integrated. As a result, the court decided to allow mainstreaming in this instance. It was held that it was not adequate for a region to claim that an isolated program was superior. In an example where this happens, the judiciary should rule out if the services making the placement significant could be delivered indiscriminately. If it is possible, the act will not be in line with the segregated school placement (Rozalski et al., p118).
This case relates to IDEA and addresses LRE. In this regard, the reason why Rockner sued the defendant was that they felt it was unfair for Neill (their son) to be enrolled in the school in the county with disabled kids yet they desired to have him interact with non-disabled peers. In the ruling, minimum restrictive placement for Neill was a public institution with normal education for children because his condition could be addressed in the same setting. Therefore, secluding him, in this case, was quite unfair.
In conclusion, LRE and FAPE operate almost jointly.

Works cited
Crockett, Jean B. “Viable alternatives for students with disabilities: Exploring the origins and interpretations of LRE.” Exceptionality 8.1 (2000): 43-60.
Douvanis, Gus, and David Hulsey. “The Least Restrictive Environment Mandate: How Has It Been Defined by the Courts? ERIC Digest.” (2002).
Tucker, Bonnie Poitras. “Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley: Utter Chaos.” JL & Educ. 12 (1983): 235.
Rozalski, M. I. C. H. A. E. L., J. A. S. O. N. Miller, and A. N. G. I. E. Stewart.”Least restrictive environment.” Handbook of special education (2011): 107-119.