Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_35_issue_3?pg=43
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:45:02+00:00

Document:
These two cornerstone mandates appear in separate subsections with no indication of whether they are interrelated or whether one has precedence over the other.78 Courts have articulated three tests to determine whether a school district has offered an educational setting that complies with the LRE requirement.
74 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1) (2012).
75 In Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), the Supreme Court held that an “appropriate” education meant nothing more than provision of a “basic floor of opportunity,” as reflected by passing grades and advancement from grade to grade. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 200–01. The child in Rowley was a hearing-impaired student enrolled in a regular class. Id. at 184. Her parents argued that an in-class sign language interpreter was necessary to achieve a FAPE. Id. The Court held that the child had been provided with an appropriate education since she was provided with “personalized instruction and related services” meeting her personal needs that allowed her to advance from grade to grade. Id. at 209–10. Justices White, Brennan, and Marshall vigorously dissented. These Justices criticized the majority opinion for being at odds with the statute’s intent to provide equal educational opportunity and pointed to legislative history indicating that the objective was to allow handicapped children “to achieve their maximum potential.” Id. at 214. The majority opinion noted that the legislative history relied upon by the dissent represented a passing comment and that when, as here, a statute requires action in exchange for funding, it functions as a contract whose requirements must be unambiguously stated. Id. at 204. Nonetheless, the low standard set by Rowley remains good law.
76 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5).
77 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).
78 See Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1045 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he act does not . . . provide any substantive standards for striking the proper balance between its requirement for mainstreaming and its mandate for a free appropriate public education.”).
79 Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 (Oct. 3, 1983). In Roncker, the school offered segregated placement to a mentally retarded child that the IHO found overly restrictive and ordered placement of the child in a special class in a regular elementary school. Id. at 1061. The Ohio State Board of Education reversed, agreeing with the school district that the segregated setting offered educational opportunities that the child needed and that integration could be accomplished outside of the classroom. Id. The district court also ruled in favor of school district. Id. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court reviewed the administrative determination for “abuse of discretion” rather than by according “due weight” to the state proceedings. Id. at 1062.

References: § 1412
 v. 
 § 1412
 § 1412
 v. 
 v.