With passage of PL 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, one could argue that the ultimate in legislative assurances had been achieved for handicapped children and youth. By law, the handicapped must receive a free and appropriate education. Insertion of the word appropriate extends the implications of the law beyond the issue of equal rights. It gives both advocates and professionals an agenda for the future as attempts are made to operationally define appropriateness and to strengthen instructional interventions.The required individualized education program (IEP) is emerging as a useful tool ( 1) for focusing the attention of parents and educators on instructional needs of the handicapped, and (2) as an accountability measure in the overall issue of due process. The more significant impact of the legislation, however, may center on the response of public schools in implementing the principle of least restrictive environment (LRE). Given the specification of educational goals and short-term objectives based on individual needs of the handicapped child, the most normal appropriate instructional setting must be selected for implementation.
INFERRED MEANING OF LREAlthough PL 94-142 requires adherence to the least restrictive principle and sets forth procedures for determining compliance, it falls short in offering those responsible for implementation clear guidelines as to what constitutes least restrictiveness for particular students. In the absence of such guidelines, local districts, faced with compliance, have moved to operationalize a definition and in the process have oversimplified the principle. The consequence is an emphasis on placement options centering on retention in the regular class -popularly referred to as mainstreaming.