holding that “a district that does not operate a regular [education] program is not required to initiate one simply in order to create [a least restrictive environment] opportunity for a disabled child,” but ought inquire into the availability of regular classroom options “within a reasonable distance”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “a district that does not operate a regular [education] program is not required to initiate one simply in order to create [a least restrictive environment] opportunity for a disabled child,” but ought inquire into the availability of regular classroom options “within a reasonable distance”
- finding that the mainstreaming component of the IDEA requires that a disabled child is placed in the “least restrictive environment . . . that will provide him with a meaningful educational benefit”
- affirming a district court’s determination that a school district provided a FAPE but vacating the district court’s determination that the school district’s placement constituted the LRE and remanding for consideration of whether the school district considered appropriate alternate placements
- noting that an appropriate IEP “must provide ‘significant learning’ and confer ‘meaningful benefit’ as ‘gauged in relation to a child’s potential’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
The Court concludes that, although “public agencies that do not operate programs for non-disabled preschool children are not required to initiate such programs,” the federal regulations do impose upon them an affirmative duty to make all reasonable efforts to find alternatives that will provide the LRE. 34 C.F.R. § 300.552 Note (1987); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.551 . This includes the alternative of “[pllacing children with disabilities in private school programs for non-disabled preschool children.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.552 Note. I agree.
The Court also concludes, quite properly, that Rainbow Rascals was available to provide N.R. with a free and appropriate public education in a wholly integrated environment. It nevertheless relieves the Board of Education of any duty to provide N.R. access to that education because Rainbow Rascals was not “accredited or approved” under the applicable state regulation at the time the placement decision was made. I would have no quarrel with this holding if the record indicated that Rainbow Rascals failed to meet educational criteria established by the State. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (a)(18)(D) (the FRAP required under IDEA must “meet the standards of the State educational agency.”). The record in this case, however, does not suggest there are any such criteria that Rainbow Rascals failed to meet. What the record does affirmatively establish is that the State at the relevant point in time was not accrediting private preschools, and that although state law provided for a waiver of the “accredited or approved” requirement, see N.J. Admin. Code § 6:28-4.6 (Supp.1994), no request for a waiver was made. 1 If a state can so easily avoid *583 its affirmative duty to provide a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, the promise of the IDEA will be illusory for many. For that reason, I respectfully dissent. I would reverse and remand with instructions to grant tuition reimbursement.
. In addition to placement in accredited private schools, state law also authorized placemen! in preschools "in approved facilities.” *583 N.J. Admin. Code § 6:28-1.1 (e)(3) (Supp. 1994). The record does not reflect, however, that the State maintained any list of preschools in "approved facilities.”