Opinion ID: 6986365
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Proposed IEP

Text: The sole issue on appeal with respect to the § 504 claim is whether the proposed IEP constituted a reasonable accommodation. We find that it did. As explained above, the multi-compo-nent IEP that the School District proposed to J.D. responded to the major recommendations of his psychologist. In addition to advanced placement courses at PHS, the program would have given him access to some college-level courses at a nearby college (presumably at the School District’s expense). Although the IEP would not have placed J.D. among intellectual peers of his own age, the School District did offer to provide individual counseling and training in peer relationship skills to cope with his feelings of isolation and frustration. We do not think that the School District’s refusal to fund J.D.’s enrollment among intellectual peers of his own age, without more, amounts to discrimination. As noted above, the § 504 regulatory scheme expresses a preference for mainstreaming students with disabilities in a school district’s regular school environment, unless that objective cannot be achieved even with the aid of supplementary services. Here, the overwhelming un-controverted evidence shows that J.D.’s academic progress at PHS was exemplary. To the extent he was emotionally troubled, we cannot say that the counseling component of the IEP was an unreasonable accommodation, at least until such time, if ever, that it is proven ineffective. 6 The heart of J.D.’s opposition to the proposed accommodation is that it was not optimal. However, § 504 does not require a public school district to provide students with disabilities with potential-maximizing education, only reasonable accommodations that give those students the same access to the benefits of a public education as all other students. J.D. points out that the law includes private residential schools as appropriate placements under § 504 when necessary to provide a free appropriate public education. The key words, however, are “when necessary.” On this record, J.D. has failed to show that attendance at a private out-of-state boarding school was necessary. At most, the record reflects that Dr. Meisenhelder and a couple of the teachers were concerned that J.D.’s emotional problems might worsen and his academic progress might suffer if he were not placed in an academic setting with intellectual equals of his own age. While we do not doubt the sincerity of these concerns, given the lack of any proof that the proposed counseling program would be ineffective, we are compelled to conclude that they are too speculative to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the reasonableness of the proposed IEP. J.D. also relies on another decision by the same hearing officer who ruled against him. See In re: KM., 29 IDELR 1027 (Vt. Jan. 22, 1999).' However, the circumstances of the two cases are hardly comparable. K.M. was suicidal, repeatedly ran away from home, became truant, and fraternized with a group that abused drug and alcohol, to the detriment of her school performance. On the advice of a psychologist, KM.’s parent enrolled her in a private boarding school, where K.M.’s behavior improved markedly. In granting the request of K.M.’s parents for reimbursement, the hearing officer found that the school district had failed to develop a specific IEP for the student or to offer an alternative placement to her parent. See id. In contrast, the present record contains no evidence that J.D. was out of control. On the contrary, J.D.’s father himself stated that J.D. responded constructively to parental pressure. The record is also devoid of any evidence that J.D. engaged in the types of high-risk behavior that necessitated a boarding school environment for K.M. Moreover, unlike that case, the School .District here offered J.D. a specific program designed to address his academic and emotional needs. 7 In sum, although we sympathize with the understandable desire of J.D.’s parents to provide the best possible education for their academically gifted child, we find no error in the district court’s holding that the defendants did not discriminate against J.D. in violation of § 504 by declining to reimburse him for tuition and costs at an out-of-state residential school. At bottom, in the matter before us, we as a court are constrained because this case involves issues of policy that are the domain of the legislative and administrative branches. ’ CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.