lre in ecse under idea… and other interesting acronyms

LRE in ECSE Under IDEA…

and other interesting acronyms

Contact Information

Darren G. Kermes, Esq.Director of Special Services

New Prague Area Schools

New Prague, MN 56071

952.758.1767

[email protected]

Lisa BackerECSE Specialist

(619 Coordinator & Part C Data)

MN Dept. of Education

Roseville, MN 55113

651.582.8473

[email protected]

Presentation Overview

What does IDEA say regarding LRE for young children with disabilities?

What guidance has OSEP provided? What can be learned from due process hearings

and court decisions? How can state leaders work to build local

capacity?—Minnesota’s Initiatives Q & A—Open dialogue

What does IDEA say regarding LRE for young children with disabilities?

IDEA Reauthorized

In December of 2004, IDEA was reauthorized. See P.L. 108-446

The relevant provisions in IDEA addressing LRE can be found at: 20 USC 1412 (a)(5)(A)

20 USC 1412 (a)(5)(A)*

“To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”

*Language unchanged from IDEA ‘97

Further Clarification from Federal Regulation

The U.S. Department of Education has published draft regulations to guide the implementation of IDEA. Published on June 21, 2005 Available online at:

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html

LRE Provisions in Proposed Regulations

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 300.114 LRE requirements. 300.115 Continuum of alternative placements. 300.116 Placements. 300.117 Nonacademic settings. 300.118 Children in public or private institutions. 300.119 Technical assistance and training activities. 300.120 Monitoring activities.

Proposed Regulation 300.114

Proposed § 300.114, regarding LRE, generally would retain the current provisions in § 300.550(b). The proposed regulation would remove the

documentation requirements of § 300.130(a) and § 300.550(a) and (b).

300.114(a)

(a) General. (1) Except as provided in § 300.324(d)(2) (regarding children with

disabilities in adult prisons), the State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that public agencies in the State meet the LRE requirements of this section and §§ 300.115 through 300.120.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that— (i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,

including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and

(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

300.114(b)

(b) Additional requirement-State funding mechanism. (1) General.

(i) A State funding mechanism must not result in placements that violate the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section; and

(ii) A State must not use a funding mechanism by which the State distributes funds on the basis of the type of setting in which a child is served that will result in the failure to provide a child with a disability FAPE according to the unique needs of the child, as described in the child’s IEP.

(2) Assurance. If the State does not have policies and procedures to ensure compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the State must provide the Secretary an assurance that the State will revise the funding mechanism as soon as feasible to ensure that the mechanism does not result in placements that violate that paragraph.


Proposed § 300.115, regarding continuum of placements, would retain the language currently in § 300.551.

300.115

(a) Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services.

(b) The continuum required in paragraph (a) of this section must— (1) Include the alternative placements listed in the definition of

special education under § 300.38 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions); and

(2) Make provision for supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction) to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement.


Proposed § 300.116, regarding placements, would retain the language currently in § 300.552, except that paragraph (b)(3) would be revised to clarify that a child’s placement must be as close as possible to the child’s home unless the parent agrees otherwise.

300.116 In determining the educational placement of a child with a disability,

including a preschool child with a disability, each public agency must ensure that— (a) The placement decision—

(1) Is made by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options; and

(2) Is made in conformity with the LRE provisions of this subpart, including §§ 300.114 through 300.118;

(b) The child’s placement— (1) Is determined at least annually; (2) Is based on the child’s IEP; and (3) Is as close as possible to the child’s home, unless the parent

agrees otherwise;

(Emphasis Added)

Proposed Regulation 300.116(c)

Proposed § 300.116(c) would be revised to require that each public agency ensure that, unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school he or she would attend if not disabled, unless the parent agrees otherwise. This additional language, ‘‘unless the parent agrees

otherwise,’’ in paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) would clarify that parents can choose to send their child to a charter school, magnet school, or other specialized school without causing a violation of the LRE mandate.

300.116(d), & (e)

(d) In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services that he or she needs; and

(e) A child with a disability is not removed from education in age appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum.


Proposed § 300.117, regarding nonacademic settings, would retain the current provisions in § 300.553.

300.117

In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and the services and activities set forth in § 300.107, each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in those services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child.


Proposed § 300.118, regarding children in public or private institutions, would retain the current provisions in § 300.554.

300.118

Except as provided in § 300.149(d) (regarding agency responsibility for general supervision for some individuals in adult prisons), an SEA must ensure that § 300.114 is effectively implemented, including, if necessary, making arrangements with public and private institutions (such as a memorandum of agreement or special implementation procedures).


Proposed § 300.119, regarding technical assistance and training, would retain the current provisions in § 300.555.

300.119

Each SEA must carry out activities to ensure that teachers and administrators in all public agencies— (a) Are fully informed about their responsibilities for

implementing § 300.114; and (b) Are provided with technical assistance and

training necessary to assist them in this effort.


Proposed § 300.120, regarding LRE monitoring activities, would retain the current provisions in § 300.556.

300.120

(a) The SEA must carry out activities to ensure that § 300.112 is implemented by each public agency.

(b) If there is evidence that a public agency makes placements that are inconsistent with § 300.114, the SEA must— (1) Review the public agency’s justification for its

actions; and (2) Assist in planning and implementing any

necessary corrective action.

Policy Guidance from OSEP

Presumption

Given that the LRE provisions of IDEA and the proposed federal regulations have remained virtually unchanged in the reauthorized version of IDEA, policy guidance from OSEP (and court and hearing decisions) citing the previous law and regulations remain relevant today.

Critical Letters from OSEP

Letter to Van Wart, 20 IDELR 1217 (1993)Letter to Burke, 211 IDELR 133 (1979)Letter to Neveldine, 16 IDELR 739 (1990)Letter to Neveldine, 20 IDELR 181 (1993) Letter to Neveldine, 22 IDELR 630 (1995)

LRE Determination AbsolutesLetter to Van Wart, 20 IDELR 1217 (1993)

Placement determinations must be made individually by the IFSP/IEP team. Not by age group of child Not by category of disability

Determinations must be made at least annually. Determinations cannot be based on “administrative

convenience” or economic considerations.

LRE ConsiderationsLetter to Burke, 211 IDELR 133 (1979)

Each state must insure that FAPE is available to all children with disabilities. (Within state-mandated age ranges)

When preschool age children with disabilities are served, they must be provided all rights and benefits accorded under IDEA. Therefore, LRE provisions apply to all children with disabilities,

including preschoolers.

States are not mandated to establish preschool programs for nondisabled children for the sole purpose of being able to implement the LRE principle for children with disabilities.

LRE OptionsLetter to Burke, 211 IDELR 133 (1979)

States are not mandated to fund the placement of nondisabled children at preschools for children with disabilities in order to create an integrated setting.

States are not compelled to establish “extensive contract programs with private schools” solely to implement the LRE principle.

The LRE for preschoolers can be accomplished in a variety of alternative settings including Head Start, local child care centers, and programs in district elementary schools.

General Education PlacementLetter to Neveldine, 16 IDELR 739 (1990)

If a local educational agency (LEA) determines that a disabled preschool child needs general education placement for all or part of his educational program, then the placement must be provided at no cost to the parents.

In the absence of an LEA-operated, general preschool program, an LEA may comply with the federal regulations by placing this child in a general preschool program operated by another public or private agency, or by locating its preschool program for disabled children within a regular elementary school.

Fiscal Responsibility and SettingsLetter to Neveldine, 20 IDELR 181 (1993)

If a child’s team concludes the LRE requirements can only be met in a full-time or part-time preschool placement in which students with and without disabilities are integrated, the public agency is responsible for all of the costs of the placement, regardless of whether single or multiple services are provided.

A child’s team may determine that a specific service required by the child (such as PT) does not require interaction with other children, and, therefore, can be provided in a variety of settings including the home or provider’s office.


The public agency must provide FAPE in the least restrictive environment even if the LEA does not provide free preschool programs to all preschool-aged children.

Further, when the public-agency places a child in a private preschool program for the purpose of receiving FAPE, the child's entire educational program during the time the child is placed by the public agency must be provided at no cost to the parent.


The LEA must provide FAPE to a preschool-aged child with a disability in the least restrictive environment where the child's unique needs as contained in the IEP can be met, regardless of whether the LEA provides regular education or free preschool programs to nondisabled children.

The "natural setting" may be the child's placement only if it meets all Part B requirements including those pertaining to LRE.

Guidance from APR Letters

Letters generated in response to Annual Performance Reports submitted for 2003-2004 reporting year

Numerical Goals

In response to a state that set a numerical goal for increasing number of children served inclusively--

“While a numerical goal is not inconsistent with IDEA, the State must continue to monitor to ensure that eligibility decisions for all children are made in conformity with the requirements of Part B of IDEA..”

Data

From an APR letter to a state with admittedly questionable data…

“In preparation for submission of the SPP on December 2, 2005, the State should carefully consider the data and information collected for the APRs, along with the requirements related to this indicator in the SPP packet. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State’s data in the SPP.”

Guidance From Due Process Hearings

Lancaster-Lebanon Int. Unit #13Pennsylvania SEA May, 2003 (4 ECLPR 475)

The parents of a preschool child with autism disagreed with the district's placement of their 3-year-old in a home-community setting with special itinerant services.

The IHO awarded reimbursement for the parents' unilateral placement of their child in a general preschool setting with children who did not have disabilities.

The district's IEP was deficient because it failed to present data of the child's performance in any natural setting against which the IHO could compare the child's goal attainment.

Lancaster-Lebanon Int. Unit #13Pennsylvania SEA May, 2003 (4 ECLPR 475)

The child's placement was inappropriate because the district failed to consider placing the child in a preschool with appropriate role models for the development of language and social skills.

The IHO reasoned that if the child had already attained the skills to function successfully in a setting with nondisabled peers, as indicated by the district's deletion of certain goals, the child deserved the chance to demonstrate the skills.

Ramsey Board of Education New Jersey SEA May 6, 2003 (39 IDELR 59)

Five-year-old with autism. Parents sought reimbursement for private tuition and therapy

expenses, due to the district's refusal to place their son in an integrated preschool program and provide adequate speech therapy.

The IHO awarded them costs associated with the speech therapy, but denied their other requests.

The parents were unable to provide any evidence the district's placement of their son in a self-contained program was detrimental or a "step backwards."

Ramsey Board of Education New Jersey SEA May 6, 2003 (39 IDELR 59)

The parents rejected several IEPs and ultimately placed the boy in a variety of private preschools, despite the district's numerous evaluations concluding the child was not yet ready for inclusion.

In addition to the district's experts, the IHO also considered that a district inclusion program already rejected the child.

In some cases, the parents placed the district in a position where it could not possibly provide acceptable services.

The IHO instructed that the district was not required to use the parents' choice of therapists, nor was it obligated to use their preferred methodologies.

Fair Haven Borough Board of Educ. New Jersey SEA May 7, 2003 (39 IDELR 80)

The parents of a preschooler diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder objected to the district's offer of an in-district placement on grounds it was unstructured and their son would stagnate.

The ALJ, however, found no evidence to support their position. The district initially placed the student in a private preschool

program, because it had no services at the time. The following school year, the district offered its own preschool

program. Noting the district was only required to provide meaningful

educational benefit in the LRE, the ALJ ruled the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for their continued placement of their child in the private preschool program.

Youngstown City School District Ohio SEA September 1, 2003 (4 ECLPR 532)

The parent removed the child from the district's special needs preschool inclusionary autistic unit and enrolled her in a private school, contending the district's program did not provide FAPE.

The IHO determined that the district's special needs preschool program provided a preschooler with autism FAPE in the LRE, and denied the parent's request for private school reimbursement.

The IHO explained the IDEA only required the district to provide a "basic floor of opportunity consisting of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide that educational benefit to the Student."

Youngstown City School District Ohio SEA September 1, 2003 (4 ECLPR 532)

The IHO explained that the IDEA's LRE presumption "favors a public education in a setting as close as possible to parents' home and with as much integration and contact as possible with non-disabled school age peers."

The district's program incorporated nondisabled children into the classroom for learning, play, and art.

The IHO instructed that the district was not required to use the parents' choice of therapists, nor was it obligated to use their preferred methodologies.

New Britain Board of EducationConnecticut SEA October 14, 2003 (4 ECLPR 517)

The IHO determined that the district's proposed placement of a hearing impaired 3-year-old in a self-contained special education preschool classroom that meets five half days a week and one hour of speech and language services offered him no more than a trivial educational benefit and provided him with no access to nondisabled peers.


The IHO concluded the student needed "an intense language-rich program that will help him develop his communication skills." The student, who was hearing impaired from birth, had very

limited language skills resulting from his hearing impairment, his limited social interactions and peer contacts, a language poor home environment, and inconsistent use of his hearing aids.

His behavior was difficult to control. The program staff where he had received services from birth to

age 3 believed addressing his language deficits would help his behavior.

The district wished to focus on the behavior first.


According to the IHO, the district's program was too short to meet the student's intense language needs, had no "typical peers" to serve as behavior and language models, did not provide a teacher of the hearing impaired, and failed to provide an audiologist or parental support and training.

The IHO ordered the district to place the child in a program equivalent to that provided by the birth to 3 agency: full day program with a teacher of the hearing impaired, an audiologist to monitor his hearing aids and continue

audiometric testing, placement with nondisabled peers to help him develop language

skills and appropriate behaviors, and parental support and education.

Newark Unified School District California SEA October 15, 2003 (4 ECLPR 505)

Three-year-old child with autism. The IEP containing 23 goals was sufficient The IHO concluded that the district's proposed

placement in a special preschool day class met the student's unique needs and was reasonably calculated to provide him an educational benefit.

The IHO found no legal support for the parents' claim the district was required to allow them to actually observe the placement.

Newark Unified School District California SEA October 15, 2003 (4 ECLPR 505)

The IHO explained that the child's alleged inability to generalize skills learned in his DTT sessions to a preschool setting was irrelevant because a child with a disability did not need to have any prerequisite skills to attend a preschool special education program. The teachers in special education programs instruct the children

in everything they need to know, unlike general education preschool where children need certain skills because the teachers do not have the time to teach them.

Northwest R-I School District Missouri SEA June 1, 2004 (4 ECLPR 560)

Four-year-old with disabilities Student’s IEP contained some inadequacies, but were found

to be de minimis and the program was reasonable calculated to provide the child with educational benefit.

The child's mother admitted that she never notified the district, either verbally or in writing, that she was withdrawing her son in favor of a private setting.

Even if the IEP failed to offer FAPE, the panel stated that reimbursement was not warranted because the private school was not an appropriate placement for the child because it denied him the opportunity to interact with nondisabled peers in a traditional school setting.

Oceanside Union Free School Dist New York SEA August 17, 2004 (4 ECLPR 568)

The district provided FAPE in the LRE to a preschooler diagnosed as having multiple disabilities with its proposed placement in an integrated kindergarten classroom.

The parents challenged the appropriateness of the program, asserting the student was not ready for kindergarten and that the integrated classroom was not restrictive enough.

Although the parents requested a more restrictive environment, the SRO determined the district properly provided the student with the LRE when it offered her supplementary aids and services for use in the integrated classroom.

Oceanside Union Free School Dist New York SEA August 17, 2004 (4 ECLPR 568)

The SRO concluded the district offered an appropriate IEP based on the committee's review of various reports, summaries, and letters created over the course of nearly one year and detailing the student's needs and progress.

In finding the placement appropriate, the SRO noted the district followed the IDEA's preference to educate students with disabilities with nondisabled students to the maximum extent possible. The district complied with the LRE provision by providing the

student with supplementary aids and support services.

Toms River Regional Board of Ed. New Jersey SEA February 28, 2005 (4 ECLPR 638)

The district's placement of a preschooler with apraxia and multiple other disabilities in a half-day program with OT, PT, ESY and speech and language therapy offered the child FAPE.

While it was “understandable and admirable” for the parent to wish more for the 4-year-old child, the district was not obligated to provide it.

Toms River Regional Board of Ed. New Jersey SEA February 28, 2005 (4 ECLPR 638)

Despite her performance below her age level, the evidence showed the child progressed in a meaningful manner. She progressed at least one year in her auditory comprehension

and expressive compression over a period of a year.

Although testimony also showed that an intensive, highly focused, ultra-repetitive, concentrated learning experience could allow her to achieve more and benefit to a greater degree, the district was not required to "maximize" the child's potential.

Whittier City School District California SEA June 16, 2005 (4 ECLPR 644)

A preschooler with a mild speech and language impairment received FAPE from his district even though it declined to provide him with individual speech therapy.

The district's experts showed the student's needs were not so severe as to require him to be restricted to interactions only with a therapist.

The district showed the interaction and instruction provided by the Family Learning Activity Group classroom would be more beneficial in that he would be required to communicate with his peers.

Ipswich Public School District Massachusetts SEA September 6, 2005 (4 ECLPR 658)

A preschooler with autism was offered FAPE by his district in his transition from early intervention services.

Although the 3-year-old's mother delivered his ABA and other related services at home, the district's offer that included inclusion in an enhanced preschool classroom was appropriate.

The mother, who was concerned about the student's asthma and feeding difficulties, did not believe the student was ready to receive services in the school environment or be included in a classroom with other children.

Ipswich Public School District Massachusetts SEA September 6, 2005 (4 ECLPR 658)

After objecting to those portions of the proposed IEP, she refused to make the preschooler available for the district's service provider and even "fired" his OT provider, but then claimed the child did not progress with the district's program.

The IHO found the combination of home and school services was appropriate. But, she required the district to make some modifications to the

IEP, including monitoring the level of noise and distraction and cleaning the student's work area to reduce the risk of germs.

She also ordered that the "amount of inclusion be implemented in a reverse gradual mode."

Guidance From the Courts

Katherine G. by Cynthia G. v. Kentfield Sch. District

Child began receiving special education at 3. District proposed placement in a special

speech/language preschool class. Parent unilaterally enrolled child in a private

preschool program that included children without disabilities, then sought tuition reimbursement.

Parent presented credible evidence at hearing that the private placement had provided meaningful benefit.

Katherine G. by Cynthia G. v. Kentfield Sch. District

Ruling: District failed to provide FAPE because the child’s non-inclusion placement was not designed to meet her unique language needs in the areas of pragmatics and social skills.

What this means: If parents are able to show a private inclusion placement confers benefit, and a district’s placement would have been more restrictive, the parent is likely to prevail.

Blount by Blount v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit

Grandparents filed for a review of the decision claiming the "record in this case does not support the conclusion that (student) cannot be satisfactorily educated in a regular preschool, with adequate support from (the district)…”


Ruling: The court, emphasizing the IDEA's strong presumption that mainstreaming is the appropriate placement for a child with disabilities, determined the IHO failed to require the district to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child "could not be educated satisfactorily in a regular classroom with supplementary aids and services.".


Impact of this decision: Districts have the burden to prove…that a preschool

child cannot be satisfactorily educated in a general classroom with supplemental aids and services.

Requiring parents to prove that their children are “worthy” of being mainstreamed turns the IDEA’s mainstreaming presumption “on its head”.

Burden of ProofSchaffer v. Weast Nov 14, 2005 (US Supreme Court)

Parents request due process hearing In 1997 Student in 7th Grade Parents wanted District to pay for private school

placementALJ ruled parents bore the burden of persuasion

at hearing.

Burden of ProofSchaffer v. Weast Nov 14, 2005 (US Supreme Court)

District Court reversed-District bore burden.Fourth Circuit reversed-Parents bore burden.

Concluding that parents had offered no reason to depart from the normal rule of allocating the burden to the party seeking relief.

Supreme Court upheld Fourth Circuit

Strategies for States

What Minnesota is doing to increase use of LRE.

The Context

A bit about Minnesota….

Minnesota is the birthplace of….

Water-skiingSPAMBob DylanJudy GarlandTarget StoresPrince

We are home to…

The Mall of America The first professional wrestler to hold the office of

Governor The headwaters of the Mississippi River The world’s largest ball of twine

Yes, I that says “twine”

This slide was edited by NECTAC due to copyrighted material it contained.

It contained a picture of “The World’s Largest Twine Ball”

ECSE in Minnesota

Education is the lead agency for Part C Free Appropriate Public Education provided from

birth Local child find and service coordination efforts

driven by Interagency Early Intervention Committees Preschool is not universally available in MN “School Readiness” provides limited funds to

districts for targeted preschool programs

Instructional Settings forPreschool Children with Disabilities on 12/1/04

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

12/1/2004 27.4% 42.9% 4.7% 17.7% 7.3% 1.0%

EC ECSE Home EC/ECSE Itinerant Rev.

Current use of settings

Settings by Age

Instructional Settings for 3, 4, and 5-Year Olds with Disabilities on 12/1/04

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

Age 3 20.4% 48.8% 9.4% 12.3% 7.6%

Age 4 29.9% 40.2% 3.1% 18.2% 7.7%

Age 5 31.5% 36.1% 1.5% 24.1% 6.3%

EC ECSE Home EC/ECSE Itinerant

2006 2011-

It’s All About the DASH!

It’s All About the DASH

DataAwarenessStrategies & SupportH…

Data…

2003-04 ECSE District Profile Released in February 2005 Included those indicators of ECSE program

quality for which data was available Compared district status to other districts in the

region, districts of similar size and to the state as a whole.

Included quartile rankings & percent of children served in early childhood program options

Data…

2003-04 ECSE District Profile Posted on the MDE website Provides public access to data Being updated for the 2004-05 reporting

year to include indicators from the State Performance Plans

Impact of Data Profile

Administrators became more invested Multiple requests for training Flood of questions Some defensiveness

Data Quality ImprovedData driving program improvement

Awareness

Administrators Directors of Special Education Superintendents Local ECSE Coordinators/Lead Teachers Principals State and local level administrators of early childhood

program options Parents ECSE Teachers

Awareness

Once is not enough for most audiences Use multiple communication strategies Tailor the message

Superintendents and Directors: Avoid costly disputes Provide cost effective services Improve outcomes for children

Dynamic Awareness

SEA Awareness of Local Fears

Will it cost more?Will we need additional staff?Can we maintain program quality across

sites?Will children make adequate progress?Will other programs want to collaborate?Will we like the changes?

Strategies and Support

New relationship with National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project Routines-based Assessment Integrated Therapy Embedded Intervention Collaborative Consultation

Two demonstration sites being established Member of MN ECSE Higher Education

Consortium “bought out” as an ongoing trainer


State resources allocated 619 Discretionary funds Professional Development Grant from OSEP State staff


Goal: Have a demonstration site located in each of MN’s economic development regions by 2008

Provide NIPIP training at district request

Fiscal Facts—eliminate misconceptions

Working to build statewide culture of improved assessment of child outcomes

H…..elp!

“20 Worst Offender” Project Data from local districts enrolling at least 2,000

students K-12 analyzed to identify those 20 districts least likely to serve preschool children inclusively.

Those districts recruited to participate RFP develop to identify contractor with:

Knowledge of special education Expertise in organizational design and development

H…..elp!

Stakeholder group formed in participating districts ECSE leadership ECSE service providers EC leadership EC teachers Parents of young children with disabilities

Contractor will work with local stakeholder groups to identify barriers to increased use of LRE

H…..elp!

Contractor will facilitate the development of work plans to overcome identified barriers

MDE prepared to support districts with the successful implementation of work plans as necessary Professional development, technical assistance, Ongoing support

lre in ecse under idea… and other interesting acronyms

Documents

young children

removal of children

lre requirements

regular classes

idea reauthorizedin

implementation of idea

private institutions

public agencies