Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney briefs Harper Creek board on IDEA ‘least restrictive environment’ and rising state audits
Summary
Troon Law attorney Rob Dietzel told the Harper Creek Board that IDEA requires individualized placement decisions, schools must document maximized supplementary aids and services before more restrictive placement, and recent MDE guidance has prompted targeted ISD audits.
Rob Dietzel, an attorney from Troon Law Firm, told the Harper Creek Board of Education on Dec. 9 that federal special education law requires school teams to place students with disabilities in the “least restrictive environment” to the maximum extent appropriate. Dietzel said the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Office for Special Education Programs guidance require IEP teams to show they ‘‘maxed out’’ practical supplementary aids and services before moving a student to a more restrictive setting.
Dietzel outlined three circumstances courts often consider when reviewing a move to a restrictive placement: whether the restrictive setting offers educational benefits that cannot be replicated in general education; whether marginal benefits of a restrictive setting are far outweighed by mainstreaming advantages; and whether the student’s behavior constitutes a disruptive force that cannot be addressed with supports. He described relevant case law from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and cited a high-profile Office for Civil Rights review in Yonkers as an example of systemic findings when IEPs contain boilerplate justifications rather than evidence of alternatives tried.
Board members pushed back on practical questions: how to obtain the staffing and resources needed to provide supplemental aids and services, and how to respond to highly disruptive behaviors when there are neither available specialized classrooms nor immediate remedies. One board member said the district’s budget and staffing constraints sometimes limit available supports; Dietzel acknowledged that implementation takes time and recommended a focus on practical, data-driven functional behavioral assessments (FBAs), concise behavior intervention plans and fidelity checks so staff can use plans during crises.
Dietzel also flagged recent state action: he said the Michigan Department of Education’s May 2022 guidance and follow-up monitoring have made LRE a priority for compliance reviews at selected ISDs. He described MDE teams conducting weeklong reviews, interviewing teachers and parents, and reviewing IEPs — and warned that findings can trigger multi-year improvement plans or compensatory education where inappropriate placements are discovered.
Board members and district administrators agreed on one operational takeaway: training and usable plans matter. Superintendent Ridgeway and others said they want guidance that helps implement supports in buildings, not only compliance checklists. Ridgeway said he will continue to bring training and IEP-team–level supports to building staff and pursue solutions that balance legal obligations with the district’s available resources.
The board did not take formal action on LRE issues during the meeting; the presentation closed with an exchange of questions and answers and an agreement to return to implementation planning at the school and IEP-team level.
