Abstract
Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that state and local agencies refrain from the discrimination of individuals with disabilities by providing them with services in the most integrated setting appropriate. Despite this mandate, state and local education agencies across the country engage in practices that could be characterized as providing unwarranted segregation and unequal education practices. One such example is a U.S. Department of Justice investigation of the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Services. The Department of Justice issued guidelines for appropriate program modifications, including proper evaluation procedures, appropriate entrance and exit standards, effective behavioral and mental health education services, and equal education and extracurricular opportunities. Implications for practitioners, in light of these suggested guidelines, are detailed.
Keywords
Placement disparities for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) have been a persistent and ongoing concern in schools across the country. In 2013, 17.1% of students with EBD received services in nontraditional school settings (12.8% separate schools, 1.6% residential facilities, 1.1% hospitals, 1.6% correctional facilities; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). In contrast, only 3.9% of students across all other disabilities received services in nontraditional school settings (2.9% separate schools, 0.3% residential facilities, 0.4% hospitals, 0.3% correctional facilities; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Similarly, 45.2% of students with EBD spent 80% or more of the day in the regular classroom, compared with 62.1% of students across all disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). These statistics are concerning, particularly in light of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990) and the emphasis of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) on placements in the least restrictive environment.
Indeed, a powerful precedent established in Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) has been the impetus for a number of court cases across the United States and their decisions in favor of integration of individuals with disabilities (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2014). In Olmstead v. L.C., two women with intellectual disabilities remained institutionalized, despite the conclusion by treatment professionals that they would benefit from community-based programming. The Supreme Court’s ruling required that states (a) eliminate unnecessary segregation of persons with disabilities and (b) ensure that persons with disabilities receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.
Despite court rulings and legislation, as evidenced by the U.S. Department of Education (2015) data, many schools are still serving students with disabilities, in particular students with EBD, in restrictive settings that are not always the most appropriate for their educational success. Examples of placement disparity are evident in the statistics previously discussed. When students with EBD are served within their home school, they are often, and at higher rates than their peers with other disabilities, served in self-contained classrooms, with little to no access to their typical peers (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). Similarly, students are placed in separate schools where only students with disabilities are served and where curriculum, electives, and extracurricular activities are limited or unavailable. For example, there are seven states where more than 20% of students with EBD are served in alternative educational settings (i.e., separate schools, residential facilities, homebound/hospitals, or correctional facilities; U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
One notable example was recently documented in the state of Georgia, where, on average, students with EBD spend more time inside the regular classroom and are served with less frequency in alternate education settings than national averages (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The U.S. Department of Justice investigated placement practices for students with EBD served in the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS) program. This column highlights details of this illustration (e.g., unwarranted segregation and unequal education opportunities) and summarizes guidelines for remediation proposed by the Department of Justice. As many state and local education agencies may be engaging in practices similar to the state of Georgia, recommendations for practice are provided. Placement and programming decisions are complex issues that present unique challenges for each student, school, and district, and many state and local education agencies may be inadvertently engaging in practices similar to the state of Georgia. State and local education agencies that are not currently in violation of IDEA or ADA provisions may want to take note of these recommended implications for practice to avoid adopting practices that result in unwarranted segregation and unequal education opportunities.
Georgia Support Network
The GNETS program is a 24-region agency serving the state’s 181 school districts overseen by the Georgia Department of Education. At present, more than 5,000 students are served through the GNETS program. In a July 15, 2015, letter to the governor and state attorney general of Georgia, the Department of Justice discussed findings from a recent investigation of the program outlining ways in which the state violated provisions of Title II of the ADA (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). The GNETS program was found to demonstrate (a) failure to provide education services in the most integrated, appropriate setting, resulting in unwarranted segregation, and (b) failure to provide equal education opportunities. Furthermore, they could reasonably modify the current service delivery model to avoid discrimination and provide guidelines for remediation.
Unwarranted Segregation
The Department of Justice found that nearly all students receiving services in the GNETS program could reasonably, possibly with additional supports, receive services in a more integrated setting with access to same-age peers. In fact, the overwhelming majority of students received services in separate GNETS school buildings, often outside of their home school district. Although some classrooms were housed at regular public schools, those students were still isolated from their peers throughout the school, as students reported feeling stigmatized as a “bad kid” or an “outcast” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015, p. 8).
This segregation also limited students’ ability to transition out of the GNETS program, causing many students to feel that they are stuck or that the GNETS program is “like prison” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015, p. 9). For example, the exit criteria for several students required them to display self-control 100% of the time to transition to a less restrictive environment. In addition, segregation limited the availability of behavioral-related services in integrated settings, as many special education teachers within traditional settings reported a lack of training in working with students with behavior-related disabilities, including conducting functional behavioral assessments and/or drafting behavioral intervention plans (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015).
Unequal Education Opportunities
The investigation also found that students in the GNETS program were not afforded the same education opportunities as students in general education or less restrictive special education settings. To begin, much of the academic curriculum provided was not tied to grade-level standards and many of the classrooms included students of varying ages and grade levels. At the secondary level, much of the academic program was computer based with a focus on credit recovery. There was also evidence that suggested that many students in the program could benefit from academic services provided outside of the GNETS program. The education of students in the program was also compromised with regard to electives and extracurricular activities. For example, many students were served in settings where there were limited, or only computer-based, opportunities to engage in elective courses (e.g., foreign languages, art, music, vocational, advanced placement). Similarly, many students were not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities at their home school or could not because of travel and scheduling logistics as a result of receiving services at a facility outside of their home school.
The investigation found inequalities with the facilities in which the GNETS program was housed as compared with traditional school settings. Many of the buildings were previously used for Black students during segregation or general education students before those students were moved to newer, more modern facilities. The buildings were old and often poorly maintained, with poor lighting or inadequate heating/air and lacking typical school amenities (e.g., cafeterias, media centers, science labs).
Guidelines for Remediation
As part of the investigation, the Department of Justice also found that the state of Georgia was capable of making reasonable modifications to the provision of services that would prevent discrimination against students with behavioral-related disabilities, offering the following remedial measures:
Conducting proper evaluations (or re-evaluations) to determine if students can be served in less restrictive settings
Applying equitable, transparent entrance/exit criteria that are shared with all stakeholders
Redirecting resources to provide behavioral and mental health services, including preventive services, in integrated settings
Providing education and extracurricular opportunities to students in restrictive settings that are equal to those in general education
Implications for Practice
The four guidelines outlined by the Department of Justice for remediating the practices for supporting students with behavioral needs in the state of Georgia are important practices that all schools may want to consider. Many state and local education agencies may engage in practices, to some degree, that are similar to the state of Georgia and the GNETS program. Furthermore, state and local education agencies that are not currently in violation of IDEA or ADA provisions may want to take note of these implications for practice to avoid inadvertently adopting practices that result in unwarranted segregation and unequal education opportunities. At the heart of these suggestions for remediation is the need to be mindful of the individualized needs of the students while educating them in the least restrictive environments appropriate for their learning and behavioral needs.
Evaluating Student Needs
It is essential that when evaluating a student for eligibility for special education services, or re-evaluating for continued eligibility, assessment methods comprehensively address multiple areas (i.e., academic, behavioral, and social characteristics). Furthermore, upon evaluating data, it is important to consider students’ service and placement needs on an individualized, case-by-case basis. In other words, students should not be placed in a setting as a matter of convenience nor should they be placed in a setting because other individuals with the same or similar special education eligibilities are typically placed in that setting. As a guideline for making these decisions, Bateman and Linden (2012) have offered the following suggestions:
Determine placements annually, more often if needed.
Base placement decisions on the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Make placement decisions with the IEP team, including parents/guardians.
Educate students with disabilities with students without disabilities as often as is appropriate.
Take into account potentially harmful outcomes for the student and/or quality of services.
Entrance and Exit Standards
It is always the goal of special education services that placement be provided in the least restrictive environment. Because of the nature of students with EBD, some students may engage in behaviors that necessitate education being provided in a more restrictive setting. However, the intent of their education programming should always be to support their behavior so that later transition to a more integrated setting is possible. Integrated settings are more reflective of society as a whole, the environment that students will inhabit as they pursue postsecondary endeavors. One way that schools can facilitate this is to develop transition plans upon entering a more restrictive setting. This transition plan should include goals that guide students’ services and activities. Skills like the development of effective social skills, requirements of the school day in a less restrictive setting, and rigorous academic progress are essential to successful transition and must be in place for the duration of more restrictive placements, not as an afterthought or near the end of more restrictive placements (Griller Clark & Mathur, 2015). At the heart of this transition plan should be realistic goals that will facilitate student success in a less restrictive setting. Behavioral goals, like academic goals, should be tied to the student’s present level of performance and should be representative of the student’s needs to be successful in a given setting (Bateman & Linden, 2012). These goals should be adjusted over time just as the supports in place to help students meet these goals may need to be adjusted over time. Success in general education and special education settings does not require students to display appropriate behavior 100% of the time; therefore, exit criteria tied to goals that are not realistic do not accurately reflect the expectations of teachers in less restrictive settings. Finally, these goals and services should always be clearly articulated to teachers, parents, and the student to facilitate understanding and success.
Effective Behavioral and Mental Health Services
Educators are responsible for the education of the whole student, meaning the student’s academic, behavioral, social, and emotional needs. For example, IDEA (1990) calls for individualized education for students with disabilities that addresses whatever area of deficit that affects a student’s ability to be successful without special education services. If students require behavioral and mental health services to be successful in school, it is important that those are included as related services within their IEP and that students are placed in school programming that will support their behavioral and mental health development. These services must be provided in what is determined to be the least restrictive environment for the student. Again, this provision of services should be based on student need, not on service-delivery models that are typical or convenient for the school or district. One approach that has been successful for many schools and agencies is the use of wraparound support services involving a variety of service providers (e.g., student, parents, teachers, counselors, social workers, community agents; Eber, Hyde, & Suter, 2011). It is important to collaborate effectively with all of these individuals and groups to support students’ needs.
Education and Extracurricular Opportunities
When making placement determination decisions as a member of an IEP team, it is important to consider both the strengths and weaknesses of the student as well as any special interests they may possess. Students with EBD may possess strengths in one or more academic areas that will allow them to be served in a general education setting with supports (i.e., a behavioral intervention plan, paraprofessional support, coteacher). It is important that students be afforded this opportunity whenever possible, even if it is only for one or limited periods during the school day (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Regardless of the setting in which students receive academic instruction, it is vital that students receive standards-based, grade-level instruction to the extent appropriate.
Similarly, it is important to help all students bond with school through engagement in electives and extracurricular activities. School engagement is important to their development and success in school (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004). Students with EBD are no exception; in fact, because they often have a history of school failure, positive experiences through electives and extracurricular activities are even more essential (Jolivette, Stitcher, Nelson, Scott, & Liaupsin, 2000).
Conclusion
Placement disparities for students with EBD have been a persistent and ongoing concern in schools across the country. One recent example is the GNETS program in the state of Georgia, which was found to be in violation of unwarranted segregation of students with EBD. It is unfortunate that many state and local education agencies may be unintentionally in danger of similar violations. States and districts may want to consider the remediation provisions outlined by the Department of Justice to correct or prevent similar inadvertent errors. It is imperative that educators consider the individualized needs of the students while educating them in the least restrictive environments appropriate for their learning and behavioral needs.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.