A few years ago, I was sitting in an IEP meeting that left a mark on me.

The team was split.

One group was adamant that the student must stay in the general education class “for inclusion’s sake.” Another insisted a self-contained program was “better for safety because he has [a disability].”

And I remember sitting there, data in hand, realizing both sides were missing the point.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) isn’t about where a student goes.

It’s about what supports and services make participation possible.

And as I listened, I realized something important: IDEA doesn’t spell out what the “least restrictive environment” should look like for any specific disability.

There isn’t one “right” setting for all kids.  

The law says that students with disabilities should be educated with their peers to the maximum extent appropriate. That word, appropriate, is doing a lot of work here. It means that general education isn’t all-or-nothing. It’s about what’s right for the student, not what’s easiest for the team.

Here’s what that can look like in practice:

• General education classroom with support: The child spends the full day in general ed, with accommodations, assistive tech, and/or support from an aide.
• Partial access to general education classroom with support: Some of the day in general ed, and some in small-group instruction outside of the special education classroom or specialized services.
• Special education class: A program designed for kids with similar learning needs, offering more intensive instruction.
• Specialized program outside the district: For some, that might mean a private placement or residential setting when the in district supports just can’t meet the child’s needs in the local school.

   

1. IDEA is clear on two things:
   Students should learn and be with their peers in the general education to the “maximum extent appropriate.”
2. Removal from general educations classrooms should only happen when a child’s needs are so intensive that “supplementary aids and services can’t provide the child with an appropriate education.”

That’s why our role as behavior analysts and advocates matters so much.
We bring data that helps teams decide not where a child belongs, but how to make that environment work.

That meeting years ago taught me to stop defending a location and start defending a framework.
 

Because LRE isn’t a place, it’s a principle rooted in dignity, belonging, and access.

Here are some helpful questions to support access!

1. What conditions need to be in place for this student to be successful here?
2. How are we defining “progress” in this environment
3. Are we using behavior data to open doors or to justify closing them?