The least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate has driven classroom placement decisions for the last five decades. It has been measured as the percentage of time students spend in general education contexts (i.e., Placement A: >80%; Placement B: 40-79%; Placement C: <40%). The mandate and its continuum of placements are predicated on the assumption that students can transition to less restrictive contexts, and that each placement will provide students with the skills needed to succeed in less restrictive contexts and, ultimately, in Placement A. Results from this descriptive analysis of survey responses from a sample of teachers and administrators of 98 elementary students with complex support needs indicate that less time in general education (Placements B and C) results in decreased access to single-grade classes, educator expertise, grade-aligned instructional materials, and general education curriculum. Furthermore, for most of the variables analyzed, the data suggest that Placement B is more closely aligned with Placement C than with Placement A, suggesting that it may function as a restrictive placement. We argue that current LRE implementation is resulting in placement and progress stagnation. To allow students with complex support needs to have inclusive and equitable learning opportunities, LRE must shift away from the concept of percentage of time in general education to requirements of student access to instruction on state-adopted grade-level general education standards within general education contexts and curriculum.