|
Sixth Circuit Court Holds That
"The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)" Does Not Mean a
Neighborhood School
For more articles like this
visit
http://www.bridges4kids.org
MCLAUGHLIN v.
HOLT PUB. SCH. BD. OF EDUC., No. 01-1521 (6th Cir. February 24,
2003)
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/03a0060p.html
In part: "The
plaintiffs, Carl and Mary Sue McLaughlin, filed suit in district
court pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., seeking to overturn the order of a
state hearing review officer in favor of the defendant school
board in a dispute over the Individualized Education Program (IEP)
for their daughter, Emma McLaughlin, that had been proposed by
Holt Public Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The district
court reversed the administrative ruling, holding that the
school system must afford the child the appropriate educational
program outlined in the IEP at the school in her neighborhood
rather than the facility some distance from her home that was
identified by the defendants as the most appropriate
educational setting for a student with Emma's particular needs.
This placement, the district court ruled, constituted the "least
restrictive environment" under the requirements of the Act. . .
.
States and
school districts should be afforded some discretion in
determining what type of program is appropriate based on the
individual needs of a disabled child. See id. at 566 ("The
primary responsibility for formulating the education to be
accorded a handicapped child, and for choosing the educational
method most
suitable to the child's needs, was left by the [IDEA] to state
and local educational agencies in cooperation with the parents
or guardian of the child."). In this case, numerous school
officials testified that the categorical classroom placement was
necessary based on Emma's goals and needs and based on a
comparison of the teaching methodologies. We need not detail
that evidence here, because there is no dispute about the facts
that support the experts' testimony. It is sufficient to note
that, giving the appropriate deference to the findings of the
administrative hearing officers, the plaintiffs did not meet
their burden of proving that the 1999 IEP plan was inappropriate
for Emma. . . .
It follows that the judgment of the district court must be
REVERSED and the case REMANDED for entry of an order sustaining
the decision of the state hearing review officer."
|
