Historical Case studies and hypothetical case studies

Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989)

Case Name:Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education

Key Facts:

• Daniel, a student with Down syndrome, was placed in a self-contained classroom rather than a general education setting.

• The parents argued that the school failed to provide adequate supports to enable Daniel to succeed in a general education classroom.

Ruling:The court established a two-part test for determining compliance with LRE:

1. Can the student be educated satisfactorily in a general education classroom with supplementary aids and services?

2. If not, has the school mainstreamed the student to the maximum extent appropriate?

Significance:This case set the foundational framework for LRE determinations, emphasizing the necessity of considering both the potential for inclusion with supports and the appropriateness of placement in more restrictive environments.

Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (1993)

Case Name:Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District

Key Facts:

• The student, Oberti, was a child with autism whose parents sought his placement in a general education classroom with supports rather than a segregated setting.

• The school district argued that it could not meet his needs in a general education environment.

Ruling:The court ruled that schools must first consider placing students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate supports before placing them in more restrictive settings. The court emphasized the importance of making reasonable efforts to accommodate students.

Significance:This case reinforced the inclusion mandate under IDEA, highlighting that educational institutions are required to prioritize general education placements for students with disabilities and to provide necessary supports to facilitate their inclusion.

Greer v. Rome City School District (1991)

Case Name:Greer v. Rome City School District

Key Facts:

• Greer, a student with a learning disability, was denied placement in a general education classroom.

• The school district did not demonstrate that it had made reasonable efforts to provide supplementary aids and services to support Greer's education in the general setting.

Ruling:The court ruled in favor of Greer, stating that the school failed to consider the academic and non-academic benefits of inclusion, including social interactions with non-disabled peers.

Significance:This case highlighted that LRE considerations encompass both academic success and the social and emotional development of students with disabilities, emphasizing the holistic benefits of inclusion in educational settings.

Here are some hypothetical scenarios that involve questions of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Each scenario allows you to apply the two-part test from Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education and consider key terms relevant to LRE.

Scenario 1: Sarah’s Inclusion Needs

Background:Sarah is a 10-year-old girl with a specific learning disability (SLD). Her parents want her to be placed in a general education classroom for most of the day, with the support of a special education teacher who will provide assistance in reading and writing.

Legal Question:Is Sarah being placed in the least restrictive environment appropriate for her needs?

Application of the Two-Part Test:

1. First Part:

   • Can Sarah be educated satisfactorily in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services?

     • Analysis: If Sarah receives support from a special education teacher in the general education classroom, she may be able to succeed academically. This support would include specific modifications to her reading and writing assignments.

2. Second Part:

   • If not, has the school mainstreamed her to the maximum extent appropriate?

     • Analysis: If the school has made reasonable efforts to provide necessary supports (like small group instruction and one-on-one help), and if Sarah still struggles, then a more restrictive environment may need to be considered.

Court Ruling Prediction:If the court finds that Sarah can benefit from general education with the proposed supports, it is likely to rule in favor of inclusion. The school must demonstrate that it has provided adequate supplementary aids and services before considering a more restrictive placement.

Scenario 2: Jason’s Behavioral Challenges

Background:Jason is an 8-year-old boy with autism who exhibits significant behavioral challenges in the classroom. His school has placed him in a self-contained classroom due to concerns about his behavior disrupting the learning of others.

Legal Question:Is Jason's placement in a self-contained classroom justified under LRE requirements?

Application of the Two-Part Test:

1. First Part:

   • Can Jason be educated satisfactorily in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services?

     • Analysis: If the school provides supports such as a behavioral intervention plan, a classroom aide, and sensory breaks, Jason might be able to manage his behavior and participate in a general education setting.

2. Second Part:

   • If not, has the school mainstreamed him to the maximum extent appropriate?

     • Analysis: The school must show that it attempted to include Jason in general education settings and that the supports provided were insufficient for him to succeed.

Court Ruling Prediction:If the court determines that the school did not adequately attempt to include Jason with appropriate supports, it may rule that he should be placed in a general education classroom with the necessary supplementary aids.

Scenario 3: Emily’s Social Development

Background:Emily is a 12-year-old student with a mild intellectual disability. Her parents want her to remain in the general education classroom, arguing that social interactions with non-disabled peers are crucial for her development.

Legal Question:Does the school’s refusal to place Emily in a general education classroom violate LRE principles?

Application of the Two-Part Test:

1. First Part:

   • Can Emily be educated satisfactorily in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services?

     • Analysis: If Emily can participate in general education with supports like modified assignments and peer buddies, she may benefit academically and socially from being in that environment.

2. Second Part:

   • If not, has the school mainstreamed her to the maximum extent appropriate?

     • Analysis: If Emily’s academic progress has been assessed and found lacking in the general education classroom despite reasonable accommodations, the school may consider a more restrictive placement.

Court Ruling Prediction:The court is likely to rule in favor of Emily remaining in the general education setting, especially if it can be shown that her social development and communication skills would benefit significantly from interaction with her peers.

Key Terms Review

• Supplementary Aids: Additional supports provided to help students with disabilities thrive in a general education setting (e.g., tutoring, assistive technology).

• Modifications: Changes made to the curriculum or instruction that allow students with disabilities to access educational materials effectively (e.g., simplified assignments).

• Mainstreaming: The practice of integrating students with disabilities into general education classrooms alongside their non-disabled peers whenever possible.