Justifying Placement Decisions in Special Education Settings
Special classes, separate schooling or other removal of a student with a disability from a Regular Early Childhood Program occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that participation in a Regular Early Childhood Program, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be satisfactorily achieved. When an IEP/Extended IFSP team determines that a child cannot be educated in a typical early childhood setting, specific reasons for that decision must be documented (MSDE, 2010).
A student with a disability is never removed from age appropriate settings solely because of needed modifications to the early learning curriculum or activities. Nor can placement decisions be based on a generalized statement e.g., “We think a child with this disability would do better in a self-contained setting.”
Instead, justification must be based on the needs of each child and where his/her IEP or Extended IFSP can appropriately be implemented. Include in the justification:
- An explanation of why services cannot be delivered in a particular setting with the use of supplementary aids, services, program modifications and other supports;
- Describe the extent to which the student WILL NOT participate with nondisabled peers. This includes the participation of preschool students with disabilities with nondisabled peers in age-appropriate early childhood activities, including meals, recess, and other services available to all students in the setting (34 C.F.R. § 300.116)
Selecting a special education program, rather than an early childhood setting, cannot be based on:
- Category of a child’s disability;
- Significance of the child’s disability;
- Language and communication needs;
- Needed modifications in the general curriculum;
- Lack of experience participating with typical peers.
- Configuration of the public agency’s delivery system;
- Availability of space or educational or related services; or
- Administrative convenience. (Appendix A to 34 CFR Part 300, notice of Interpretation, page 12471)