Oberti ex rel. Oberti v. Board of Education
995 F.2d 1204 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a school district may not place a child with a disability in a segregated classroom unless education in a regular classroom, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily. The burden of proof lies with the school district to demonstrate that its placement decision complies with IDEA's mainstreaming requirement.
Facts:
- Rafael Oberti, an eight-year-old child with Down's syndrome, lived within the Clementon School District.
- For the 1989-90 school year, the School District and the Obertis agreed that Rafael would attend a developmental kindergarten class at his neighborhood school in the mornings and a special education class in another district in the afternoons.
- While in the developmental kindergarten, Rafael exhibited significant behavioral problems, including temper tantrums, toileting accidents, and hitting other children and staff.
- Rafael's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the kindergarten class provided no behavior management plan, no special education consultation for the teacher, and few curriculum modifications or other support services.
- At the end of the school year, the School District's Child Study Team proposed placing Rafael full-time in a segregated special education class for children classified as 'educable mentally retarded' in another district.
- The Obertis objected and, following mediation, agreed to a temporary placement for the 1990-91 school year in a special education class in the Winslow Township School District.
- In the Winslow placement, Rafael had no meaningful contact or participation in classes with nondisabled students, despite the School District's promise to explore mainstreaming possibilities.
Procedural Posture:
- The Obertis objected to the School District's proposal to place Rafael in a segregated class for the 1990-91 school year and filed a request for a due process hearing.
- After mediation resulted in a temporary placement, the Obertis filed another due process complaint in January 1991, again seeking placement in a regular classroom.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing and affirmed the School District’s decision, finding the segregated placement to be the 'least restrictive environment.'
- The Obertis, as plaintiffs, filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking review of the ALJ's decision.
- The district court conducted a bench trial, heard new evidence, and found that the School District had violated IDEA, ordering it to develop an inclusive plan for Rafael.
- The Clementon School District Board of Education, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 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 placing a child with a disability in a segregated special education class without first making reasonable efforts to maintain the child in a regular classroom with appropriate supplementary aids and services?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Circuit Judge
Yes. A school district violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) if it fails to prove that a child with a disability cannot be educated satisfactorily in a regular classroom with supplementary aids and services. The court adopted a two-part test to determine compliance with IDEA's mainstreaming requirement. First, a court must ask 'whether education in the regular classroom, with the use of supplementary aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily.' To answer this, a court should consider several factors: (1) the steps the school district has taken to try to include the child in a regular classroom; (2) the educational benefits the child will receive in a regular classroom compared to a segregated setting, including crucial social and communication benefits; and (3) the possible negative effects the child's inclusion may have on the education of other children in the classroom. Second, if placement outside a regular classroom is deemed necessary, the court must then ask 'whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate' in other activities. The court also held that the school district, not the parents, bears the burden of proving compliance with IDEA. Here, the School District failed to meet its burden under the first part of the test. The district court's findings, which were not clearly erroneous, showed the School District made only negligible efforts to accommodate Rafael, failed to provide adequate supplementary aids and services which likely caused his behavior problems, and did not credibly show he would be disruptive if proper supports were in place.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong, pro-inclusion precedent within the Third Circuit, making it significantly more difficult for school districts to justify segregating students with disabilities. By formally adopting the Daniel R.R. test, the court provides a clear analytical framework that prioritizes efforts to accommodate students in regular classrooms before considering more restrictive placements. Placing the burden of proof squarely on the school district empowers parents and reinforces the statutory presumption that mainstreaming is the default. The ruling pressures schools to exhaust all reasonable options for supplementary aids and services, fundamentally shifting the focus from a child's 'readiness' for inclusion to the school's responsibility to create an inclusive environment.
