The Honor able Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern 1 District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. 07
- 46 52
- cv P. by h i s Par en t s v . N ew i n g t on B d of Ed. U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F OR THE S EC OND C IR C U IT

_______________ August Term, 2008 (Argued: September

3, 2008 Dec ided: October 9, 2008) Docke t No. 07-4652-c v

________________________________________________________ P., B Y AN D TH R OU GH H I S P AR E NT S / NE XT F R I EN DS , M R . AND M RS . P., Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt,
—v.— N EW I NGTON B D O F E D ,

Defendant-

Appellee

.

________________________________________________________ B e f o r e : S A CK and K ATZ MANN , Circuit Judges , RA KO FF , District Judge
. 1

_______________ Appea l of a fina l judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Alvin W. Thompson, J. ) g rantingdefe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt, and aff irming the decision of a

n administrative hea

ringoffice r that the plaintiff e lementar y -school student’s Individualiz ed Educ ation Plan for the 2005- 2006 aca demic y ear complied with the require ment under the Individuals with Disabilit ies Education Act that disabled students be e du c a te d in

the “ le a st r e str ic tiv e e nv ir onme nt. ” We a ff ir m and tod ay a do pt a c a se - a nd fa c tspecific test for de termining whether a student has be en plac ed in the lea st restrictive e nv ir onme nt, c on sid e ri ngwh e the r, wi th t he a id o f a

pp ro pr iate su

pp le me nta l a ids and

se rv ic e s, full-time educa

tion in the regular c lassroom may be ac hieved, a

nd, if not, whether

the school has included the student in re g ular c lasses, prog rams, and a ctivities to the max imum ex tent appropr iate.

_______________2

Couns e l f or Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt: D AVI D C. S HAW , Bloomfield, Conn. Counsel for De fenda

nt-Appellee : M A RK J. S O MM A R UGA , Sulli van, Schoen, Campane &

Connon, L L C, Hartfor d, Conn.

_______________ K ATZ MANN , Circuit Judge : Th is c a se c a lls up on

us to a do pt a

sta nd ard by wh ic h c ourt s in

thi s c ir c uit

sh ou ld a sse ss whether a disabled c hild has been pla ced in the “ least re strictive environme nt,” as re quired by the Individuals with Disabilit ies Education Act (I DEA), 20 U .S.C. § 1412(a)(5) . The plaintiff, P., suing by and throug h his parents, is a c hild with Down Sy ndrome attending public sc hool in the Town of Ne wing ton, Connecticut. He c ontends that the 2005-2006 Individualiz ed Educ ation Plan (I EP) devised for

him at his elementary

school did not include enoug h regular-c lassroom time, and there fore did not place him in the least re strictive environme nt as mandate d by the I DEA. P. cha lleng ed the I EP before an administrative he aringoffice r, who he ld that the school complied with the statute. P. appea led that dec ision to t he United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ( Alvin W. Thom pson, J. ), wh ic h a ff ir me d, g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt t o the def endant Ne wing ton Boa

rd of Educ ation. Today , we a ffirm the de cision of the district cour t and join sever al of our sister circ uits in hol ding that determiningwhether a student has be en pla c e d in the “ le a st r e str ic tiv e e nv ir onme nt” re qu ir e s a fl e xible , f

a c t- sp e c if ic ana ly sis , consideringwhether , with the aid of a ppropriate supplemental aids and se rvice s, education in the
re g ula r c la ssr oo m ma

y be a c hie ve d, and , if

no t, whe the r t

he sc ho ol h a s in c lud e d th e stu de nt i n regular c lasses, prog rams, and a ctivities to the max imum ex tent appropr iate. Applying that analy sis to the case be fore us, we a ffirm the de cisions of the hea ringoffice r and district c ourt that the def endant f ulfilled its obli g ations under the I DEA. I
. The I DEA Require ment of an I EP The I DEA “ repr esents an a mbitious fede ral e ffor

t to promote the educ ation of3

handica pped childre n.” Bd

. o f E du c . o f th e He nd

ric k Hu ds on Ce nt. Sc h. Di

st. v. Rowley , 458 U. S. 1 76 , 1 79 (1 98 2) (i nte rp re tin g the Ed uc a tio n f or Al l H and ic a

pp e d Ch ild

re n A c t, subsequently

rena med I DEA). T he statute provide s fede ral a ssistance for education of children wi th d isa bil iti e s and

re qu ir e s th a t st a te s r e c e ivi ngsu c h a ssi sta nc e pr ov ide dis a

ble d s tud e nts wi th a “f ree appropr iate public educ ation” in “the le ast restric tive environment,” 20 U.S.C. § 1 4 1 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 5 ) , an d

d e v i s e anIE P f

o r e a c hd i s a b l e d s tu d e n t . T h e IE P i s c r a f

t e d an d r e v i s e d b y a team consisting of the c hild’s pare nts, the child’s regular-c lassroom teac her, a specia l-educ ation t ea ch er , a r ep re s en t at i v e o f t h e l o ca l edu ca t i o n al age n cy , an d o th er i n d i v i d u al s wi thkn o wl ed ge and expertise re g ardingthe child. Id. § 1414(d)( 1)(B ). The I EP must i nclude a statement of the
c hil d’ s p re se nt l e ve l of

a c a de mic and

fu nc tio na l pe rf

or ma nc e , me a sura

ble annua l g oa ls, sp e c ia leducation and supplemental ser vices, a nd any prog ram modifications for the child, alongwith an
e xplanatio n o f t

he e xtent to wh ic h th e c hil d w ill no t pa rt ic ipate wi th n on -d isa

ble d c hil dr e n in regular c lasses and a ctivities, a projec ted date f or the be g inning of

any specia l supplementary service s or modifications, and the a nticipated fr equenc y , location, and dur ation of such se rvice s and modifications. Id. § 1414(d)( 1)(A) (i). In developingthe I EP, the team must consider the child’s streng ths, the conce rns of the pa rents, the r esults of the most rec ent eva luation of the child, and the a cade mic, developmenta l, and func tional needs of the child, alongwith other “spec ial fac tors” par

ticular to childre n with cer tain needs. Id. § 1414(d)( 3)(A) , (B ). The loc al
e du c a tio na l a g e nc y

mus t e ns ur e that th e I EP i s r e vie we d p e ri od ic a lly , n o le ss t ha n a nnua lly , “ to deter mine whether

the annua l goa ls for the c hild are be ing a chieve d,” and to r evise the I EP as neede d based on the child’s prog ress a nd anticipated ne eds. Id. § 1414(d)( 4). A child’s par ents must be notified of any chang e in a c hild’s educational prog ram, id.4

§ 1 41 5( b) (3 ), and

if a c hil d’ s p are nts are dis satis fi e d w ithan I EP, the y may fi le a c omp la int

wi th the state’s e ducational a g ency . Id. § 1415(b)( 6). Such complaints ar e re solved at an “ impartial due proc ess hea

ring ,” id. § 1415(f) , and any party ag g rieve d by

the outcome may

bringan appe al in any state or f eder al cour

t of compete nt jurisdiction, id. § 1415(i)(2) , which will then “f ashion appropr iate re lief base d on its assessment of a pr eponder ance of the e vidence develope d at the administrative proc eeding s and any further evidenc e pre sented by

the par ties.” W alczak v . Fla. Un ion Fr e e Sc h. Di

st. , 142 F.3d 119, 122- 23 (2d Cir. 1998). I I
. Fa ctual B ackground A. Th e De ve lop me nt o f P .’ s 2 00 4- 20 05 and 20 05 -2 00 6 I EPs P. s uf fe rs fr om D ow n Sy

nd ro me , h e ari ngimp a ir

me nt, and oth e r s ig nif

ic ant h e a lth pr ob le ms that ha

ve re qu ir e d s e ve ra l se ri ou s p ro c e dure s, inc lud ingsurg e ry to r e pa ir a ho le in h is he art and mul tip le bo we l op e ra

tio ns , a s a re su lt o f whic h h e is n ot t oil e t tr a ine d. At the tim e
re le va nt t o th is l iti g a tio n, he wa s a stu de nt a t th e Anna

Re y no lds El e me nta

ry Sc ho ol i n Newing ton, Connecticut. Amongthe assig ned staff at the school wor

king w ith P. have been the specia l-educ ation teac her, two pa rapr ofessionals, a spe ech pathologist, a phy sical thera pist, and
an occ upational thera

pist. In the springof 2004, whe n P. was eig ht, the school district’s be havio ra l c on su lta

nt, Gr e g Smith, inf

or me d h is p are nts that it

wa s b e c omi nginc re a sin g ly difficult to keep P. in a r egular c lassroom, as the g ap in ability betwee n P. and his peers w as g rowingand would g row lar g er. Mor eover , at var ious tim es, P. had exhibit ed some be havior pr ob le ms, inc lud ingkic kin g , g ra bb ing , a nd pu lli ngha ir . P. ’s mot

he r s tr on g ly

dis a g re e d w ith Smit h’s assessment a

nd wanted he r son to rema in in a regular c lassroom with his non-disabled peer s as much as possible.5

On May 28, 2004, the g roup assig ned to formulate P.’s I EP, the “Perf ormanc e and Planning Te am” ( PPT), met to dis cuss plans for the 2004-2005 school year . At that meeting , P.’s pa re nts state d th a t th e y

wa nte d th e ir so n to be in a

re g ula r c la ssr oo m at le a st 8 0% of the tim e duringthe upcomingschool y ear . Instead, the I EP provided that P. be in the classr oom for 60% of the sc ho ol d ay , w ith“ pu ll- out” se rv ic e s f or oc c up a tio na l and

sp e e c h th e ra

py in s e pa rate classrooms, and the plan did not include any measure s to deal with P.’s burg eoningbehavior problems. In order

to fac ilitate increa sed inclusion in the regular c lassroom, P.’s pare nts asked that a consultant spec ializi ng in such matters be hired, a nd in acc ordanc e with their re quest, the Boa rd re tained Dr . Kathlee n Whitbrea d to evaluate P. Additionally , later in the summer of 2004, the Connecticut Children’s Me dical Center (CCMC) perfor

med a psycholog ical eva luation of P., in which he wa s found to have soc ial-intera ction and communication skil ls equivalent to those of
an ave rag e two-year -old child. T h e r ep o rt al s o fo un d th atP
. co m mun i ca t edp ri m ar i l y th ro u gh “sig ns, g estures, a

nd single words” a

nd exhibi ted “se rious problem beha viors,” including “disruptive beha

vior, destruc tiveness to proper ty , and hurtingothers.” The re port conc luded that “[P.] will need per

vasive support, much more than others his ag e, bec ause of very limit ed adaptive be haviors and be cause of problem be haviors.” A “ fu nc tio na l be havio r a sse ssm e nt” (F BA ) t o as s es s b eh av i o r p ro b l em s wa s n o tp er fo rm ed , n o r w as an “a s s i s t i v e t ec h n o l o gy evaluation” (ATE) , which tests the extent to which assistive technolog y may fac ilitate inclusion into the regular-c lassroom environment. Dr. Whitbread c ompleted her evaluation on Dece mber 13, 2004. In the re port, based on two hours of obser

vation of P. at home and 4.5 hour s of observation of him in t he cla ssroom, Dr. Whit br e a d d e sc ri be d P. ’s be havio r p ro ble ms a s “ mod e ra te ly se ri ou s” and

op ine d th a t th e PPT6

had done “ a commenda

ble job of ensur ing that [ P.] spends the majority of the da ywith nondisabled pee rs.” Ne verthe less, she re commended that P.’s inst ruction be more closely connec ted to the g ener al educ ation curr iculum. Dr. Whitbread a lso recommende d consultation with a teac her of the hea ringimpaired a

nd a program of liter acy

instruction. Acc ordingto the testimony of his second- g rade teac her, Ms. Mazur, P.’s beha vior improved during2004-2005. He was only remove d from the r egular c lassroom three times due to b e havio r p ro ble ms that c a us e d o r r isk e d p hy sic a l ha rm to a no the r p e rs on , th ou g h ti me outs
wer e used. Ms. Mazur a lso ex plained that, althoug h she fr equently co-ta ug ht classes with the sp e c ia l- e du c a tio n te a c he r, Na nc y Wilc oc k, to i nte g rate P. i nto re g ula r l e sso ns , in

a t le a st s ome circ umstances, “ [P .] wil l need individualized instruction to make sure that he . . . is rece iving the best instruction without dist rac tion.” The PPT next met with Dr. Whitbread to discuss her f indings a nd the CCMC evaluation on Fe bruar

y 11, 2005. At the meeting , the PPT acce pted her rec ommendations for a

n ATE and literary instruction. Although D r. Whitbread stated at the meetingthat P. would benefit fr om additional regular-c lassroom time, she also conte nded that some of his litera cy instruction might need to take place outside the classroom. The PPT did not, however, r eac h any conclusions and decide d to rec onvene in Apr il. Prior to the April meeting , Dr. Whitbread a nd Ms. Wi lcock, the spe cial-e ducation tea cher
w h o h a d b e e nw o r k in g w it hP. f o r thr e e y e ar s , e xc h an g e d

e - ma il s r e g ar d in g a

p p r o p r iate n e xt steps. In one of the se e- mails, Dr. Whitbread stated: Ti me out of

the c la ssr oo m is a

c on c e rn of [P.’ s] pa re nts and it i s im po rt ant t o them that [P .] be fully

included. The ir g oal is 100% of the time in a g en. ed. c lass. Ihave sha

red w ith them that Ifee l some pullout t ime is benefic ial. To me, a7

rea sonable g oal over

the next y ear

would be to incre ase his time in the g ener al ed. environment fr om the curr ent 60 or 65% to a bout 80%. Iwould not rec ommend that this be done suddenly . Irea liz e this is goingto be a diff icult discussion since there are differ ence s in opinion about what is best for [P.] . My hope is that we can ha ve a pr oductive conve rsation, with the under standing that compromise may b e n e c e s s ar

y. Th is e ma il i s c on sis te nt w ithDr . Wh itb re a d’ s late r t e sti mony be fo re the he ari ngof

fi c e r i n th is
c a se , d ur ingwh ic h s he c on fi rm e d th a t sh e “ re c omm e nd e d w or kin g up to 8 0 p e rc e nt . . . that in [her] ex perie nce it’s not produc tive to go in a nd say rig ht now y ou must do thi s.” But Dr
. Whitbrea d also clar ified her definition of “g radua l”: “I would have liked to se e that happe n over a month, two months, may be thre e months, but certa inly not y ear s.” The PPT next convene d on April 15, 2005, with Dr. Whitbread a g ain in attendanc e. At the meeting , the spec ial-educ ation teac her, Ms. Wilcock, noted that P.’s beha vior had improved, but th a t hi s atte nti on

sp an w a s li mit e d. P.’ s p are nts a g a in e mph a size d th e ir pr e fe re nc e tha

t th e ir son’s regular-c lassroom time increa se fr om 60% to 80% in the upcomingy ear . Although the PPT scheduled another

meetingin J une to discuss the question, it indicated that at lea st some of P.’s speec h-thera

py sessions would occur

in the regular c lassroom, and that a ll parties ag ree d that he would under g o some phy sical thera py instead of r egular phy sical educ ation (althoug h he would still participate in some regular phy sical educ ation). Dr. Whitbrea d ag ain stated he r
rec ommendation that the team “ g radua lly incre ase to 80% inc lusion for [P .].” Th e PPT n e xt me t on

June 3, 20 05 . N ote s f

ro m th e me e tin g ind ic ate tha t an F B A f

or P. ha d b e g un

tw o w e e ks pr ior , a

nd that a ll p art ie s a g re e d th a t th e sc ho ol w ou ld h ir e a mut ua lly ag ree able be haviora l specialist. Wit h respe ct to the per centa g e of time P. would spend in the
c la ssr oo m, h ow e ve r, the pa rt ie s w e re un a

ble to r e a c h a

c on se ns us , a

nd P.’ s p are nts lod g e d th e ir8

disag ree ment with the plan in writing . Dr. Whitbread late r testified that the PPT eng ag ed in a “ver y long te dious process” while attempting to determine the appropr iate amount of c lassroom tim e . U lti mate ly , th e I EP p ro vid e d th a t P. ’s re g ula r- c la ssr oo m ti me wo uld

inc re a se fr om 6 0% to 74%, with participation in “all regular c lass[es] ,” except whe n he nee ded to be e ducate d separ ately to “incre ase his foc us/attention” or whe n he nee ded to be r emoved f rom the re g ular classroom “ due to fatigue . . . or beha vior which indicates [a] need f or a br eak f

rom the g roup.” The I EP also mandated the f ollowing suppleme ntal assistance for P.: daily chec k of P.’s hea

ring aids in the hea lth room, adult assistance in all ac tiviti es in the re g ular c lassroom, assistive computer pr og rams, extra time and dire ctions on assig nments, routines and sche dules in pictures ins te a d o f w or ds , p re fe re nti a l se a tin g , a nd a c le a r w or k a re a . T he I EP a lso pr ov ide d f or we e kly consultation betwee n the re g ular a nd specia l education teache rs. On J une 9, 2005, P.’s par ents reque sted an a dminist rative he aringto challeng e both the 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 I EPs, primarily on the g round that P. was not suffic iently integ rate d int o th e re g ula

r c la ssr oo m. Meanwhile, the PPT met ag ain prior to the be g inning of the school y ear , on August 18, 2005. At that meeting , the par ties ag ree d to the hiring of a mutually ag ree able be haviora l and inclusion consultant, Dr. Ann Majur e. Al s o , b y th att i m e, th e s ch o o l h adh i re d a h ea ri n gi mp ai rm en tco n s u l t an tan d an o th er co n s u l t an tt o as s i s twi thi mp l em en t i n g as s i s t i v e- t ec h n o l o gy
rec ommendations. Duringa mee ting on Apr il 7, 2006, the PP T mandate d that P. be place d in a re g ular classroom for

80% or more of the school da y , pursuant in par

t to the rec ommendation of Dr. Majure. A t oral ar g ument in this case, the pa rties noted that since that time P. has been include d9

in the regular c lassroom at lea st 80% of the time. B. L itigation B efor e the He aringOffic er a nd the District Court Pursuant to P.’s parents’ r equest, he aringoffice r Mar y Eliz abeth Oppe nheim held a hear ing on P.’s pa

rents’ c halleng e to his 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 I EPs. She heard te stimony from P.’s par ents, Dr. Whitbread, Ms. Wilcock, and se vera l other tea cher s and spec ial-educ ation profe ssionals. After e x haustively revie wing the re cord, a

nd noting that the B oard bor e the burden of proof in provingthe I EPs’ compliance with the I DEA, the he aringoffice r held in a thirty -five pa g e opinion that the 2004-2005 I EP did not comply with I DEA, but that the 2005- 2006 I EP did. The 2004-2005 I EP was def icient bec ause too much of the division between
re g ula r a nd sp e c ia l c la ssr oo m ti me wa s le ft to t he dis c re tio n o f s c ho ol a

uth or iti e s a

nd be c a us e P.’s behaviora l issues were not appropriately addre ssed. As a “ compensatory education” reme dy for the de ficienc ies of the 2004- 2005 I EP, the hear ing of fice r re quired that the B oard r etain an inc lus ion c on su lta nt w ith“ c on sid e ra

ble e xpe ri e nc e in p la c ing

c hil dr e n w ithme nta l r e tard a tio n in
re g ula r c la sse s, ” a

nd he ld t hat D r. Ma

jur e , w ho m th e sc ho ol h a d a lr e a dy hir e d, c ou ld f

ill that r ole appropr iately . The B oard doe s not appea l the hear ing of fice r’s finding s with respec t to the 2004- 20 05 I EP. The he aringoffice r found, howe ver, that the 2005-2006 I EP complied with the require ments of the I DEA. Emphasizing D r. Whitbread’s state ments that she thoug ht P.’s
re g ula r- c la ssr oo m ti me sh ou ld i nc re a se g ra du a lly to 8 0% and

that P. re qu ir e d s ome sp e c ia leducation services outside of the classr oom, the hear ing of fice r found that the PPT g ave sufficie nt consideration to including P. in the classroom to the maxim um ext ent appr opriate. The hear ing of

fice r also took note of the extensive effor ts the school had made on P.’s behalf,The B oard doe s not challeng e the f ee a war d on appea l. 2 10 inc lud ingthe nume ro us su pp le me nta l a ids , s e rv ic e s, and a dd iti on a l te a c he rs e mpl oy e d to a ssi st P. throug hout the day , the mutually ag ree d-upon beha

vioral consultant hire d in 2005, and that the school had modified the c urriculum to meet P.’s nee ds. Moreove r, it was cle ar that P. was included with non-disabled stude nts for ar ound 73% of the time in 2005-2006, a nd “par ticipate[d] in all specials, lunch, [and] rece ss.” P. subsequently

appea led to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut the rulingthat the 2005-2006 I EP was suffic ient and the suff iciency of the re medy
awa rded f or the de ficienc ies in the 2004-2005 I EP. Both par ties cross-move d for summary judgme nt, and the district cour t issued an opinion affir

ming the he aringoffice r’s de cision and
awa rd ingP. p art ia l atto rn e y s’ fe e s and c os ts. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ. , 512 F. Supp. 2d 89

2 (D. Conn. 2007). Apply

ing the two-prong ed test adopte d by the Third Circuit in Oberti v. Clementon School District , 995 F.2d 1204, 1215 ( 3d Cir. 1993), the district court he ld that the evidenc e supported the hear ing of fice r’s ruling . 512 F. Supp. 2d at 102-09. P. now a ppeals the district court’s de cision. I I I
. Discussion A. Standard of Re view We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s aw ard of summary judgme nt in an I DEA c ase. Ce rra v . P awl ing

Ce nt. Sc h. Di

st. , 427 F.3d 186, 191 ( 2d Cir. 2005). Whether the district cour t
c or re c tly a pp lie d th e I DE A’ s st a tut or y and re g ulator y pr ov isi on s to the fa c ts o f a pa rt ic ula r c a se is a mix ed question of law

and fa ct, which we also revie w de novo. Se e J .D . v . P awle t Sc h. Di

st. , 22 4 F .3 d 6 0, 64 (2 d Ci r. 20 00 ). B ut t he “ ro le of

the re vie wi ngc ourt

in m akin g the se a sse ssm e nts11

is circumscr ibed” unde r the I DEA a nd the Supreme Court’s de cision in Board of Education of the Hendric k Hudson Central School District v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Muller v. Comm. on Special Educ ., 145 F.3d 95, 101 ( 2d Cir. 1998). Althoug h school offic ials’ dec isions are subject to “indepe ndent” judicial r eview, the “re sponsibili ty for de termining whether

a challeng ed I EP will provide a child with an appr opriate public e ducation re sts in the first instance with administrative hear ing a nd revie w offic ers.” W

alc za k v . F la. Un ion Fr e e Sc h. Di

st. , 142 F.3d 119, 129 ( 2d Cir. 1998). Independe nt judicial review“is by no means a

n invitation to t he courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of

the school authorities they

revie w.” Rowley , 4 58 U. S. at 20 6. An d “ [w]hi le fe de ra l c ourt s d o n ot s imp ly
ru bb e r s tamp a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on s, the y are e xpe c te d to g ive ‘d

ue we ig ht’ to t

he se proce eding s, mindful that the judiciary g ener ally ‘lac ks the specia liz ed knowledg e and experience nece ssary

to resolve pe rsistent and diffic ult questions of educational policy .’” W alczak, 1 4 2 F. 3 d

at1 2 9 (i n t ern al qu o t at i o nm ark s o m i t t ed ) ( qu o t i n g Rowley , 458 U.S. at 206, 208)). “ Def

ere nce is pa

rticularly appropr iate whe n . . . the state he aringoffice rs’ re view has be en thoroug h and ca

ref ul.” Id. There fore , while our re view is de novo, it is tinged w ith a signific ant deg ree of def

ere nce to the state educ ational ag ency , as we are essentially actingin an administrative-law -style ca pacity
. See Lillbask v. Conn. Dep’ t of Educ. , 397 F.3d 77, 83 n.3 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (noting that “a motion for summar y judgme nt in an I DEA c ase of ten trig g ers more tha n a n in qu ir y int o p os sib le dis pute d is su e s o f f a c t. R a the r, the mot ion

se rv e s a s a

pr a g matic proce dural mec hanism for re viewinga state’ s compliance with the . . . I DEA.” ) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). Rowleypr e sc ri be s a

tw o- ste p in qu ir

y : w e mus t a sse ss ( 1) wh e the r t he state c omp lie d w ith12

the pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nts of the I DE A, and

(2 ) whe the r t

he c ha lle ng e d I EP w a s “ re a so na bly calc ulated to ena

ble the child to re ceive educational benef its.” Rowley , 458 U.S. at 206-07. The plaintiffs here do not alleg e that the I DEA’s pr ocedur al re quirements we re not met. Rather , they challeng e only

whether the I EP was “r easona

bly calc ulated to ena

ble the child to re ceive educational benef

its” – in particular , whether the I EP complied with the I DEA’s statutory mandate that P. be educated in the “lea st restrictive e nvironment.” Unde r this second “substantive” pr ong of the Rowleytest, a state ne ed not “‘ maxi miz e the potential of handica pped children,’ ” but the door of public education must be opene d in a “‘ meaning ful’ wa y ,” and the I EP must provide the opportunity for more than only

“‘trivial a dvance ment.’” W alczak, 142 F.3d at 1 3 0 (q u o t i n g Rowley , 458 U.S. at 189, 192, and Mrs. B. v. M

ilford Bd. of Educ. , 103 F.3d 1114, 11 21 (2 d Ci r. 19 97 )) ; se e als o Ce rra , 427 F.3d at 194-95. B
. F a sh ion inga

Te st f or As se ssi ngPla c e me nt i n th e “ L e a st R e str ic tiv e Envir onme nt” Th e I DE A m and a te s th a t “ [t]o th e ma ximume xtent a pp ro pr iate , c hil dr e n w ith dis a bil iti e s . . . are e du c a te d w ithc hil dr e n w ho are no t di sa ble d, and sp e c ia l c la sse s, se pa

rate schooling , or other r emoval of c hildren with disabilities from the regular e ducational environment oc curs only

when the na

ture or se verity

of the disability

of a c hild is such that education in reg ular c lasses with the use of supplementary

aids and ser

vices c annot be a chieve d
satis fa c tor ily .” 20 U. S.C. § 1 41 2( a )( 5) (A ); W alczak, 142 F.3d at 122. “Educating a handica pped child in a re g ular e ducation cla ssroom . . . is familiarly known as ‘ma instreaming .’” Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ. , 874 F.2d 1036, 1039 ( 5th Cir. 1989). We have unde rscor ed the I DEA’s “strongpref

ere nce f or childre n with disabilit ies to be educ ated, ‘ to the maxi mum ex tent appropr iate,’ tog ether

with their non-disabled pe ers.” W alczak, 1 42 F .3 d at 12 2. Ne ve rt he le ss,In Briggs , w e c ite d th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s us e of , b ut d id n ot a do pt o ur se lve s, the Sixth 3 Circuit’s approa ch in Ronck er ex rel. Ronck

er v. W alter , 7 00 F .2 d 1 05 8, 10 63 (6 th C ir . 1 98 3) , to least-r estrictive- environment c ases: “I n a ca se whe re the seg reg ated f acility is considere d superior, the court should deter mine whether

the servic es which make that plac ement super ior could be f easibly provided in a non- seg reg ated se tting.” Briggs , 882 F.2d at 692 (quoting Ronck er , 7 00 F .2 d at 10 63 ); se e als o A. W . v . Nw . R -1 Sc h. Di

st. , 813 F.2d 158, 163 ( 8th Cir. 1987) (a dopting the Sixt h Circuit’s approa ch). 13 we ha ve also a cknowledg ed that, “[w]hile mainstreaming is an important objective, we are mindful that the presumption in favor of mainstreamingmust be weig hed ag ainst the importance of providingan appr opriate e ducation to handica pped students. Under

the [I DEA], where the nature or seve rity

of the ha ndicap is such that e ducation in re g ular c lasses ca nnot be ac hieved satisfac torily , mainstreamingis inappropriate .” Briggs v. Bd. of Educ. of Conn. , 882 F.2d 688, 69 2 ( 2d Cir . 1 98 9) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; see also Lachman v . Ill. State Bd. of Educ. , 852 F.2d 290, 295 (7th Cir. 1988). Under standably , courts have rec og nized some tension between the I DEA’s g oal of providingan educ ation suited to a student’s par ticular ne eds and its g oal of e ducatingthat student with his non-disabled peer s as much as c ircumstance s allow. Daniel R.R. , 874 F.2d at 10 44 . A s su c h, c ourt s h ave us e d a c a se -b y -c a se ana ly sis in r e vie wi ngwh e the r b oth of tho se g oals have been optimally acc ommodated under

particula r circ umstances. Id. at 1048. We h ave no t y e t e xplic itl y state d a te st f or wh e the r a

n I EP p la c e s a

stu de nt i n th e le a st restric tive environment. See J ennifer D. v . N.Y

. City Dep’t of Educ. , 550 F. Supp. 2d 420, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). We conclude toda y that the two-prong ed appr oach a dopted by the Third, 3 F if th, Ni nth , T e nth , a

nd El e ve nth Cir c uit s p ro vid e s a

pp ro pr iate g uid anc e to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt s wi tho ut “ too int

ru siv e an in qu ir

y int o th e e du c a tio na l po lic y c ho ic e s th a t Co ng re ss d e lib e ra te ly left to state and loc al school off icials.” Daniel R.R. , 874 F.2d at 1046. Pursuant to that test, a court should consider , first, “whe ther e ducation in the re g ular c lassroom, with the use ofAlthough Daniel R.R. did not ex pressly denominate it as one of the “ fac tors” to be 4 ana ly zed , s ome c ourt s a do pti ngthe tw o- pa rt te st h ave a lso inc lud e d in the fi rs t pr on g an a

na ly sis of the c osts of the supplementar y aids and ser

vices ne cessa

ry to maintain the child in the regularclassroom e nvironment. See, e .g. , Rache l H. , 1 4 F .3 d at 14 04 ; Gree r , 9 50 F .2 d at 69 7. “ Th e se c ir c uit s’ [le a st r e str ic tiv e e nv ir onme nt] t e sts a c kn ow le dg e the fi sc a l r e a lity tha t sc ho ol d istri c ts with limi ted re source s must balance the needs of eac h disabled child with the nee ds of the other children in the district.” L.B. , 3 79 F .3 d at 97 7 ( no t de c idi ngwh e the r c os ts s ho uld be take n into acc ount since the issue wa s not presente d in the case ). We nee d not consider in this case whether costs should be taken into ac count bec ause the Boa rd has not ra ised the issue as a defe nse. Acc ording ly , we lea

ve that question for

another day
. Se e als o O be rti , 995 F.2d at 1218 n.25 14 supplemental aids and se rvice s, can be achie ved satisfa ctorily for a g iven child,” a

nd, if not, then “whe ther the sc hool has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate.” Id. at 10 48 ; se e als o L. B. v . Ne bo Sc h. Di st. , 3 79 F .3 d 9 66 , 9 76 (1 0th Cir . 2 00 4) ; Sa c ra me nto City Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rac hel H. , 14 F.3d 1398, 1403- 04 (9th Cir. 1994) (slig htly modified version); Ob e rtiv . Cle me nto n S c h. Di st. , 995 F.2d 1204, 1215 ( 3d Cir. 1993); Gree r v. Rome City Sc h. Di st. , 950 F.2d 688, 696 ( 11th Cir. 1991). We today expli citly

endorse that twoprong ed test, as e lucidated a nd aug mented by

J udg e B ecke r for

the Third Circuit in Ob e rti : In sum, in determining whether a child with disabilities can be e ducate d satis fa c tor ily

in a re g ula r c la ss w ithsu

pp le me nta l a ids and

se rv ic e s ( the fi rs t pr on g of the tw o- pa

rt ma ins tr e amin g te st w e a do pt t od ay ), the c ourt

sh ou ld consider se vera l fac tors, including: ( 1) whe ther the sc hool district has made rea sonable e ffor

ts to accommodate the child in a re g ular c lassroom; (2) the e du c a tio na l be ne fi ts a

va ila ble to t he c hil d in

a re g ula r c la ss, wi th a

pp ro pr iate supplementary

aids and ser

vices, a s compare d to the benef its provided in a specia l education class; and (3) the possible neg ative ef fec ts of the inclusion of the child on the educ ation of the other students in the class. I f, af ter c onsideringthese fa ctors, the c ourt deter mines that the school district was justified in removingthe child from the r egular c lassroom and providing education in a seg reg ated, spe cial educ ation class, the c ourt must consider the second pr ong of the mainstre aming test – whether the school has include d the child in school prog rams with nondisabled c hildren to the maxim um ext ent appropr iate. 99 5 F .2 d at 12 17 -1 8 ( fo otn ote omi tte d)
. B oth c ouns e l f or the pa re nts and the B oa rd in t he c a se 4(takingthe same a pproac h, noting that “ [a] dditional factors ma y be re levant depe nding on the circ umstances of

the spec ific ca se”)
. Be cause both opinions below essentially applied the test we today adopt, there is no 5 ne e d to re mand

in o rd e r f or the he ari ngof

fi c e r t o a pp ly it i n th e fi rs t in sta

nc e . M or e ov e r, e ve n if the proc eeding s below had not be en ana ly zed acc ordingto the standard w e adopt today , we f ind that the fa cts in the rec ord support the district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt. Se e Cha se Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Am . Nat’l Bank &Trust Co. , 93 F.3d 1064, 1072 ( 2d Cir. 1996). 15 at hand support this fra

mework. Although w e adopt the Ob e rtiapproa ch, we also note that this listof fa ctors is not exhaustive; courts fac ing the se ca ses must eng ag e in an individualized and fa ct-spec ific inquiry int o th e natur e of

the stu de nt’ s c on dit ion

and the sc ho ol’ s p art ic ula

r e ff or ts t o a c c omm od a te it,
ever mindful of the I DEA’s pur pose of e ducatingchildren w ith disabili ties, “‘to the maximum extent appropriate,’ toge ther with their non- disabled pee rs.” W alczak, 142 F.3d at 122; se e als o Ob e rti , 995 F.2d at 1217 n.25; Daniel R.R. , 8 74 F .2 d at 10 48 . M or e ov e r, c ourt s mu st k e e p in mind our defe rential position with respec t to state educational authorities cra fting educational policy
. W

alczak, 1 42 F .3 d at 12 9. Ne ve rt he le ss, our r e vie w mus t be se arc hin g , a nd we mus t
rec og nize that even whe n educa tional authorities act with the be st intentions t hey may sometimes fa ll s ho rt of the ir ob lig a tio ns un de r t

he I DE A, and

c ourt s mu st the n a c t to e ns ur e c omp lia nc e wi th Congr ess’s dire ctives. C. The Ob e rtiAn a ly sis Ap pli e d to Th is C a se We n owtur

n to wh e the r t

he B oa rd ’s a c tio ns wi th r e sp e c t to the 20 05 -2 00 6 I EP p a ss muster under

the test we ha

ve adopte d, which both the district cour t and hea ringoffice r ref ere nced a nd applied. Our re view is ag ainst the bac kdrop of the ultimate c onclusion of the

5 I EP, which resolve d that P. would be in the regular c lassroom 74% of the time, and Dr.Indeed, P.’s pa rents soug ht only

80% inclusion. 6 16 Whitbrea d’s statements that P.’s re g ular-c lassroom time should be g radua lly rampe d up to 80%. The fir st prong of the test asks whe ther a student can be satisfac torily educated in the re g ular classroom with the be nefit of suppleme ntal aids and ser vices. As noted, w e also c onsider whether the school made rea sonable e ffor ts to accommodate the student, the bene fits and dr awb a c ks to t

he stu de nt o f f

ull -t ime int e g ratio n into t he re g ula r c la ssr oo m, a

nd the po ssi ble neg ative impact on other

students of the disabled student’s pr esenc e. Althoug h, in light of the improvements in P.’s behavior, the re did not appe ar to be a sig nificant ne g ative impact on other students arising from his inclusion in the regular c lassroom, we se e no er ror in the district cour

t’s conclusions that P. could not be educ ated in the r egular c lass room full-time and that the sc hool 6 had made signific ant ef

forts to integ rate P. to the max imum ex tent possible. The school utiliz ed
a var iety of supplemental a ids, including seve ral a dditional professionals, and modified the
curr iculum appropriately . Moreove r, the he aringoffice r per missibl y relied on the testimony

of Dr. Whitbread that P. re quired pull-out servic es for rea ding, math, and spee ch ther apy . See Poolaw v. Bishop , 67 F.3d 830, 835 ( 9th Cir. 1995) (af firming adequa cy

of I EP when the school “off ere d a var iety

of supplemental a ids and servic es, couple d with varying de g ree s of place ment in the regular c lassroom to mainstream [the student] t o the maxim um ext ent appr opriate” ); Daniel R.R. , 874 F.2d at 1050 (aff irming some spe cial-c lassroom instruction when the sc hool “has taken cr eative ste ps to provide [the student] as much a cce ss to nonhandicappe d students as it can, while pr oviding him an e ducation that is tailored to his unique nee ds”). We ther efor e ag ree with this di strict court’s c onclusion that “the e vidence produce d duringthe administrative proce edingdemonstrates that education in the regular c lassroom, with the use of suppleme ntal17

aids and ser

vices, c ould not be achie ved satisfa ctorily for the 2005- 2006 school y ear .” P. , 5 12 F. Supp. 2d at 108. Turningto the second pr ong of the test, we must assess “whe ther the sc hool has included the child in school prog rams with nondisabled c hildren to the maxim um ext ent appr opriate.” Ob e rti , 9 95 F .2 d at 12 18 . Co nti nu ingto k e e p in min d th a t th e I EP m and a te d 7 4% inc lus ion in the re g ula r c la ssr oo m, a s o pp os e d to P.’ s p are nts ’ p ro po se d 8 0% – a dif fe re nc e of a pp ro xima te ly 2-3 hours pe r we ek – we find no err or in the district court’ s conclusion that, g iven P.’s need f or some specia liz ed instruction outside the re g ular c lassroom, he wa s mainstreame d to the maxi mum ex tent appropr iate. P. argues that this Court should adopt a presumption that a student should be plac ed in a
re g ula r c la ssr oo m 80 % o f t

he tim e and

c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d b y fa ili ngto a

pp ly such a pr esumption. P. bases this arg ument on a cla ss-ac tion settlement in which the Connecticut State Depa

rtment of Educ ation ag ree d that it would be a “de sired outcome[]” for disabled students to spend 80% of the sc hool day with non-disabled students. Recognizi ng that Connecticut school author ities may have f ound this perce ntag e figure use ful, we c onclude that mandatingsuch a pe rce ntag e in eve ry case would be inconsistent with the I DEA’s dire ctive that schools take a

n individualiz ed appr oach to e ach stude nt. See F rank G. v . Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Pa rk, 459 F.3d 356, 363 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (noting that the I DEA re quires “spe cial educ ation and related servic es tailored to mee t the unique nee ds of a pa rticular c hild”) (inter

nal quotation marks omi tte d) ; Briggs , 8 82 F .2 d at 69 2 ( no tin g that “ the pr e sumpt ion in f avo r o f m a ins tr e amin g mus t be we ighe d ag ainst the importance of providingan appr opriate e ducation to handica pped stu de nts ” ); Daniel R.R. , 874 F.2d at 1050 (noting that the I DEA doe s not envision an “all-or

-18

nothing” approa ch, but a c ontinuum of service s on which the be st prog ram for eac h child may

be ide nti fi e d) . We do no t th ink that 80 % i s p re sumpt ive ly a de qu a te or

tha t le ss t ha n 8 0% is presumptively

inadequate. Children with disabiliti es must be educ ated with their non- disabled pe e rs “ [t]o th e ma ximume xtent a pp ro pr iate ,” 20 U. S.C. § 1 41 2( a )( 5) (A ); W alczak, 142 F.3d at 122. As the word “ appropr iate” sug g ests, the objective of providing an educ ation tailored to ea ch stu de nt’ s p art ic ula

r n e e ds do e s n ot a dmi t of statis tic a l g e ne ra lizatio ns . Wh ile inc lud ingstu de nts in the regular c lassroom as much a s is practica ble is undoubtedly

a ce ntral g oal of the I DEA, schools must attempt to achieve that goa l in light of the e qually important objective of pr oviding an educ ation appropr iately tailored to ea ch student’s pa rticular ne eds. See B d. of Educ. of Murphysboro v. I

ll. Bd. of Educ. , 4 1 F .3 d 1 16 2, 11 68 (7 th C ir . 1 99 4) (s tatin g that le a strestric tive-environme nt require ment “wa s not developed to promote integration with nondisabled pee rs at the e x pense of other I DEA e ducational r equire ments”). We rec og nize and appre ciate P.’s pa rents’ de dicated a dvocac y on his behalf. B ut the
e vid e nc e be fo re the he ari ngof fi c e r a nd the re c or ds of

the se ve ra l PPT me e tin g s d e vo te d to de ve lop ingP.’ s 2 00 5- 20 06 I EP d e mon str a te tha t th e sc ho ol f

ulf ill e d it s d uty un de r t he I DE A t o
cra ft a tailore d educational plan that included P. in regular c lasses to the maxim um ext ent appropr iate. We there fore aff irm the district court’s c onclusion that the school’s ac tions were
su ff ic ie nt u nd e r t he tw o- pr on g e d te st a

nd tha t th e 20 05 -2 00 6 I EP p la c e d P. in t he “ le a st restric tive environment” under the I DEA. D. The Remedy

for De ficienc ies in the 2004-2005 I EP P. also argues on appe al that the compe nsatory -educ ation reme dy mandated by

the hear ing of

fice r for defic iencies in the 2004- 2005 I EP was insufficie nt. Those def iciencie s, which19

the B oa rd did no t c on te st i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt , w e re tha t th e sc ho ol d istri c t ha d n ot p ro pe rl y
a dd re sse d P. ’s be havio ra l pr ob le ms a nd ha d f a ile d to g ive su ff

ic ie nt c on sid e ratio n to mainstreamingthe student for more than 60% of the time. I n response to the inadequa cies of that I EP, the hear ing of

fice r orde red that the school hire a profe ssional consultant on issues of inclusion, and that that consultant par ticipate in the completion of a n FB A. P. argues that the
reme dy was illusory

beca use the school ha d alre ady hired a n inclusion consultant, Dr. Majure
. We affir m the reme dy

awa rded by the hea ringoffice r. The I DEA a llows a hea ringoffice r to f a sh ion an a pp ro pr iate re me dy , a

nd we have he ld c omp e ns a tor y e du c a tio n is an ava ila

ble option under the Ac t to make up for de nial of a f ree and appr opriate public e ducation. Mrs. C. v. W heaton , 9 16 F .2 d 6 9, 75 -7 6 ( 2d Cir . 1 99 0) ; se e als o R e id v . D ist ric t of Colum bia , 401 F.3d 516, 518 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The r emedy ’s mandate s in this case – that an inc lusion consultant be reta ined for a

y ear , requiringthe school to kee p Dr. Majur e on for at least that long , and completion of an F BA– appropr iately addre ssed the proble ms with the I EP, especia lly when considere d in light of the f act that P. is now included in at lea st 80% of re g ular-c lassroom activities, in part due to Dr . Majure’ s rec ommendations. See Parents of Student W . v. Puy allup Sc h. Di st. , 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 ( 9th Cir. 1994) (“Appr opriate r elief is re lief desig ned to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaningof the I DEA.” ). We there fore see no infirmity

in the hear ing of

fice r’s c hosen re medy
.

C ONC L US I ON Th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt t o th e B oa

rd is AF F IRM ED
.