Murray ex rel. Murray v. Montrose County School District RE-1J
51 F.3d 921 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'least restrictive environment' (LRE) provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires educating children with disabilities alongside non-disabled children to the maximum extent appropriate, but it does not create a legal presumption that a child must be educated in their neighborhood school.
Facts:
- Tyler Murray is a twelve-year-old boy with multiple disabilities, including significant mental and physical impairments, due to cerebral palsy.
- Tyler lives in Olathe, Colorado, approximately five blocks from Olathe Elementary School, his neighborhood school, which his sibling and friends attended.
- Olathe Elementary offered services for children with 'mild to moderate' needs, while Northside Elementary, located ten miles away, had a specialized program for children with 'severe/profound' needs.
- Tyler attended kindergarten and first grade at Olathe Elementary under an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
- In January 1990, staff at Olathe grew concerned that Tyler was not progressing as expected and that his placement might be inappropriate.
- In August 1990, personnel from the Murray County School District suggested that the specialized program at Northside might be a more appropriate placement for Tyler.
- At a November 1990 triennial review, a majority of the District's staffing team voted to move Tyler to Northside, while Tyler's parents and his therapists voted for him to remain at Olathe.
- All parties agreed on the goals and objectives in Tyler's IEP and that he should spend most of his time outside the regular classroom; the only disagreement was which school could best implement the IEP.
Procedural Posture:
- The Murray County School District notified the Murrays of its intent to move Tyler from Olathe Elementary to Northside Elementary.
- The Murrays requested a due process hearing before an independent hearing officer (IHO).
- The IHO ruled in favor of the Murrays, determining that Olathe Elementary was providing an appropriate education for Tyler.
- The School District appealed the IHO's decision to an administrative law judge (ALJ).
- The ALJ reversed the IHO's decision, holding that Northside was the appropriate placement.
- The Murrays, as the losing party, appealed the ALJ's decision by filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the School District, affirming the ALJ's decision and dismissing the Murrays' claim.
- The Murrays appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 the 'least restrictive environment' (LRE) requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(B), create a legal presumption that a child with disabilities must be educated in their neighborhood school?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Stephen H. Anderson
No. The 'least restrictive environment' (LRE) mandate of the IDEA does not include a presumption that the LRE is in the neighborhood school. The court's reasoning is that the plain language of the statute, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(B), addresses the removal of disabled children from classes with non-disabled children, but it says nothing about removal from neighborhood schools specifically. The statute's focus is on maximizing inclusion with non-disabled peers ('mainstreaming'), not on dictating the geographic location of that inclusion. While implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.552, create a preference for educating a child in the school they would attend if not disabled, this preference is explicitly qualified by the phrase 'Unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement.' Therefore, if a child's IEP necessitates a placement at a non-neighborhood school with specialized services, the regulations and the statute permit it. The court explicitly disagrees with other circuits that have found a stronger presumption in favor of neighborhood schooling.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the IDEA's LRE mandate within the Tenth Circuit by separating the concept of 'mainstreaming' from 'neighborhood schooling.' The court establishes that while geographic proximity is a relevant factor, it is secondary to the primary goal of providing an appropriate education as defined by the child's IEP. This gives school districts greater flexibility to create centralized, specialized programs for students with severe needs, even if it requires moving those students from their home schools. The ruling limits the ability of parents to use the LRE provision to insist on a neighborhood placement when the school district determines that an appropriate education can only be provided elsewhere.
