Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education
118 F.3d 996 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the preference for mainstreaming is not absolute and a school district may remove a disabled child from a regular classroom if the child receives no educational benefit, the benefits of a separate setting significantly outweigh mainstreaming, or the child is a disruptive force, even after the school has provided substantial supplementary aids and services.
Facts:
- Mark Hartmann is an eleven-year-old, non-verbal child with autism, characterized by significant deficiencies in communication, social interaction, and motor control.
- After moving to Loudoun County, Virginia, Mark was placed in a regular second-grade classroom for the 1993-1994 school year.
- Loudoun County provided extensive supplementary services, including a full-time aide, a smaller class size, specially trained staff, regular consultation from special education experts, and five hours per week of speech therapy.
- Throughout the school year, Mark engaged in daily disruptive behaviors, including loud screeching, hitting, pinching, kicking, biting, and removing his clothing, which required significant teacher and aide attention and distracted other students.
- By the end of the year, Mark's Individualized Education Program (IEP) team unanimously concluded that he had made no measurable academic progress in the regular classroom setting.
- The IEP team proposed a new placement for Mark at a regular elementary school where he would receive academic instruction in a self-contained classroom for autistic children but would be mainstreamed for all non-academic activities, including art, music, physical education, library, and recess.
- Mark's parents, Roxanna and Joseph Hartmann, rejected this proposed IEP, asserting it violated the IDEA's mainstreaming requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- The Loudoun County Board of Education initiated due process proceedings after the Hartmanns rejected the proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP).
- A local hearing officer conducted a hearing and issued a decision upholding the school board's proposed IEP.
- The Hartmanns appealed to a state review officer, who affirmed the local hearing officer's decision.
- The Hartmanns, as plaintiffs, filed suit in the U.S. District Court to challenge the state administrative decision.
- The district court reversed the administrative decisions, finding that the school board had failed to comply with the IDEA and ruling in favor of the Hartmanns.
- The Loudoun County Board of Education, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA) mainstreaming requirement by proposing to place a disabled child who made no academic progress and was disruptive into a partially mainstreamed program, after providing extensive supplementary aids and services in a fully inclusive regular classroom?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wilkinson
No. A school district's proposal to move a disabled child from a fully inclusive classroom to a partially mainstreamed setting does not violate the IDEA's mainstreaming requirement when, despite extensive supplementary aids and services, the child failed to make academic progress and was a disruptive force in the classroom. Federal courts must give due weight to state administrative proceedings and should not substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of local school authorities. The court applied the three-part test from DeVries v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., which permits removal from a mainstream setting if: 1) the child would not receive an educational benefit; 2) any marginal benefit from mainstreaming would be significantly outweighed by benefits in a separate setting; or 3) the child is a disruptive force. Here, the evidence overwhelmingly showed Mark made no academic progress, his disruptive behavior was significant, and Loudoun County's efforts to accommodate him were extensive and sufficient. The district court erred by disregarding the administrative findings, dismissing the testimony of Mark's teachers, and incorrectly stating that disruptive behavior is not a significant factor.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle of judicial deference to the professional judgment of local educators and state administrative bodies in IDEA cases, as established in Board of Education v. Rowley. It clarifies that the IDEA's mainstreaming preference is a presumption, not an inflexible mandate, and that the primary goal of the IDEA is to ensure a child receives an educational benefit. The decision provides a clear application of the Fourth Circuit's DeVries test, solidifying the grounds on which a school can justify moving a child to a more restrictive environment. This precedent makes it more difficult for parents to successfully challenge a school's placement decision when the school can document a lack of academic progress and disruptive behavior despite having provided robust supplementary aids and services.
