| This mixed methodology study analyzed U.S. federal appellate court outcomes and expert testimony under the least restrictive environment provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997).; The population and sample consisted of 60 published federal appellate court cases in which least restrictive environment or placement was the germane issue of special education litigation from June 4, 1997 to December 31, 2004.; Quantitative results gathered via the Litigation Documentation Sheet were used to identify gender, disability classification, primary placement issue, educational methodology, and judicial outcomes. Descriptive data were presented in the form of frequencies and percentages. Judicial outcome results indicated school districts predominantly won 70 percent of the cases; parents prevailed in 25 percent of the cases; and 5 percent were split decisions. The most frequent disability classification for which the student was the subject of litigation was autism (33.3%); where educational methodology was most often a related issue. Disputes arose around boys at twice the rate of girls. Private school placement was the most frequent primary LRE issue litigated.; Qualitatively, the processes of open, axial, and selective coding resulted in the following conclusions: (1) Regardless of the LRE issue, the analytical framework employed by federal circuits was the Rowley (1982) FAPE standard. (2) The federal appellate courts are inconsistent with regard to the principles used to determine whether a disabled student has been educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. (3) Regardless of whether an expert witness was testifying for the parent or the school district, judicial opinions expressly included the following noteworthy factors influencing decisions: expert's demeanor, knowledge and expertise, and knowledge of the child. (4) These findings are directed toward school administrators, parents, and attorneys. |
