Research & Report
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Eastern Gateway Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
219
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by brighteyesroy021520
1
Research & Report
Doriana Roy
Eastern Gateway Community College
Professor Susan Pohorence
EDU219: Characteristics of Exceptional Child
28 January 2024
2
Research & Report
Based on all of the information I have learned regarding Least Restrictive Environment
(LRE), I researched three court cases that have helped to shape the field’s understanding of LRE.
The federal law states that students with disabilities must receive their education to the maximum
extent with Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) as a requirement. The three court cases that I
will be discussing will be Florence County v. Shannon Carter, Oberti v. Board of Education, and
T.R. v. Kingwood Township.
Florence County School District 4 v. Shannon Carter was argued on October 6, 1993 and
was decided on November 9, 1993. Shannon Carter was seen as being a student who had a
learning disability. When the school found out that Carter had a learning disability, her parent’s
met with the school and discussed a program IEP that was introduced from the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents were upset about how the IEP was developed.
Therefore, they wanted to enroll her in a different school- a private school that might have better
programs for their daughter. “When state and local educational authorities concluded that the IEP
was adequate, Shannon’s parents sued in Federal District Court, claiming the school district had
failed to provide a “free appropriate public education” as required by IDEA and demanding
reimbursement for Shannon’s education at the private school” (Oyez). With this being said, the
school district argued and proceeded to say that because it was not “appropriate” that the
reimbursement was not required. However, “the District Court and the Fourth Circuit of Appeals
both ruled against the school district, requiring it to reimburse Shannon’s parents” (Oyez).
Oberti v. Board of Education took place on August 17, 1992. Rafael Oberti was a child
who had a developmental disability that was associated with Down Syndrome. His way of
functioning and the way he tried to verbally communicate was impaired. With this being said,
3
Rafeal’s parents went to numerous special education programs that were recommended and then
they rejected them. The parents brought it up and there was an agreement that Rafeal would
attend a non-special education class every morning and a special education class every afternoon.
“Largely based upon Rafeal’s experience in the developmental kindergarten, the School District
proposed to place Rafeal in an out-of-district, self-contained special education class for children
classified as “educable mentally retarded” for the 1990-91 year” (Justia). In conclusion, by
refusing to let Rafeal be apart and be included in the non-special classroom, the school district
was discriminating against Rafeal due to his learning disability. Therefore, being a violation of
504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
T.R. v. Kingwood Township was argued on November 18, 1999 and was filed on March
9, 2000. In this case, the parents of Plaintiff N.R, T.R. AND E.M.R., were asking for
reimbursement from the private school for tuition and the support services. N.R. claimed that the
school did not provide him enough education that he needed and in a least restrictive
environment (LRE). N.R. was categorized as a handicapped child and would need to be placed in
a LRE and get the proper education he needed. “The Board’s child study team determined that
N.R. had the skills to begin kindergarten in the fall of 1996 and recommended his placement in
the Kingwood School’s regular kindergarten program” (Wrightslaw). Instead of sending N.R. to
Kingwood, his parents rejected the proposal and were planning to send him to preschool for
another year at Rainbow Rascals, which is a private daycare center. Knowing all of this, the
parents of N.R. asked the Board to pay for his tuition at Rainbow Rascals and help provide the
special education services. This is when things got messy and went a little downhill. The
Kingwood township was eligible and had been approved for having the IDEA’s requirements for
N.R. and told the Board that they should not be liable for the parents decision with keeping N.R.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
at Rainbow Rascals. With all this being said, “the District Court found that the Kingwood class
constituted the least restrictive environment for N.R. under the IDEA” (Wrightslaw). The court
then found out that Rainbow Rascals was not what N.R. needed and the idea was thrown out due
to the daycare due to it not being accredited by the state. Therefore, the parents of N.R. was
looking for the reimbursement for the tuition and the special education services that were paid
for the 1996-97 school year.
5
References:
"Florence County School District Four v. Carter."
Oyez,
www.oyez.org/cases/1993/91-1523. Accessed 28
Jan. 2024.
Morin, A. (2024, January 18).
What is least restrictive environment (LRE)?
Understood.
https://www.understood.org/en/articles/least-restrictive-environment-lre-what-you-need-to-know
Oberti v. Board of Educ., 801 F. Supp. 1392 (D.N.J. 1992)
. (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/801/1392/1945004/
Wrightslaw - Law - Caselaw - T. R. v. Kingwood Township (3rd Cir. 2000)
. (n.d.).
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/3rd_TR_KingswoodNJ_00_0309.htm#:~:text=The%20Administrative%20Law%20Jud
ge%20found,keep%20N.R.%20at%20Rainbow%20Rascals
.