Opinion ID: 556661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appropriateness of Program at Annandale

Text: 27 Plaintiffs also challenge the appropriateness of the cued speech program at Annandale. First, plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly placed on them the burden of proof in showing that the state administrative hearing officer was erroneous in finding that the program at Annandale was appropriate. Next, they contend that the Board's failure to establish cued speech services for Michael at West Springfield violates the EHA's requirement that the Board provide Michael with a free appropriate public education. The Board, however, claims that the program at Annandale is appropriate for Michael. The Board also argues that the EHA does not require it to set up the cued speech program for Michael alone at his base school. 28 We reject plaintiffs' argument that the district court incorrectly placed on them the burden of proof. In a previous case, we noted in a footnote that in an EHA action seeking to overturn a decision by a state hearing officer, the party challenging the hearing officer's decision properly bears the burden of proof in showing that the officer's decision was erroneous. Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools, 853 F.2d 256, n. 2 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 1131, 103 L.Ed.2d 192 (1989). We see no reason to depart from our prior finding, and thus we hold that the burden is properly allocated to the party challenging the administrative decision below. Because plaintiffs challenged the state hearing officer's decision in the district court, the court properly placed on them the burden of proof. 29 Regarding plaintiffs' argument that the program offered at Annandale was inappropriate, we note that in Rowley the Supreme Court defined an appropriate program as consisting of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child 'to benefit' from the instruction. Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89, 102 S.Ct. at 3042. In essence, an appropriate education is one which allows the child to make educational progress. Martin v. School Board, 3 Va.App. 197, 210, 348 S.E.2d 857 (1986). 30 Based on our careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court correctly held that the program at Annandale was an appropriate education given the terms of the Act. As the court noted, Michael's scholastic record at Annandale and his participation in interscholastic sports demonstrated that he had received tremendous educational benefit from the cued speech program at Annandale. Significantly, plaintiffs have also conceded that Michael's program at Annandale is of high quality, and that he is receiving an appropriate education there. 31 The program at Annandale also satisfies the EHA's preference for mainstreaming handicapped children in their educational placement. See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(5)(B). In DeVries v. Fairfax County School Bd., 882 F.2d 876, 878 (4th Cir.1989), we recognized the importance of mainstreaming, noting that [m]ainstreaming of handicapped children into regular school programs where they might have opportunities to study and to socialize with nonhandicapped children is not only a laudable goal but is also a requirement of the Act. 32 In this case, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Board complied with the Act's mainstreaming requirements by placing Michael at Annandale. Annandale is not a center attended only by hearing-impaired or other handicapped students; it is a regular public high school. Michael was enrolled in regular classes comprised of nonhandicapped students, and his cued speech program integrated him with nonhandicapped students for all nonacademic activities. 33 Despite their concession and the clear record below, plaintiffs, nonetheless, contend that the Board had a duty under the EHA to duplicate interpreter services provided at Annandale at Michael's community school. Plaintiffs argue that the EHA requires the defendant to place Michael as close as possible to his home. They also suggest that unless Michael's IEP requires some other arrangement, he should be permitted to attend the school he would attend if he were not disabled, i.e., West Springfield. 34 As already noted, a placement is to be made in the least restrictive environment given the child's unique educational needs and the placement's potential harmful effect. 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.522. To support their argument, plaintiffs rely on two regulations promulgated under the Act. These regulations provide that a placement be made as close as possible to the child's home and unless the child's [IEP] requires some other arrangement, that the placement be made in the school [the child] would attend if not handicapped. Id. at Sec. 300.552(a)(3), (c). The official comment to these regulatory directives provides in relevant part as follows: 35 [A]mong the factors to be considered in placing a child is a need to place the child as close to home as possible. Recipients are required to take this fact into account in making placement decisions. The parents' right to challenge the placement of their child extends not only to the placement in special classes or separate schools, but also to placement in a distant school, particularly in a residential program. 36 In light of these comments, we do not interpret this section as imposing upon a school board an absolute obligation to place a child in his base school. Rather, this section requires only that a school board take into account, as one factor, the geographical proximity of the placement in making these decisions. See Pinkerton v. Moye, 509 F.Supp. 107, 112 (W.D.Va.1981) (adopting similar interpretation). 37 Here, the Board fully complied with this section by placing Michael at Annandale. Michael's IEP requires the cued speech program, which is available at Annandale, and there is no school nearer than Annandale which provides these services. 38 Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erroneously allowed the Board, in making placement decision, to consider the lack of financial resources and the impact on the other students of providing one student an interpreter. The district court found that in light of the finite resources available for the education of handicapped children, a school system is not required to duplicate a small, resource-intensive program at each neighborhood school. 39 Although we agree with plaintiffs that the Board should not make placement decisions on the basis of financial considerations alone, appropriate does not mean the best possible education that a school could provide if given access to unlimited funds. See Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 199, 102 S.Ct. at 3047 (to require ... the furnishing of every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's potential is ... further than Congress intended to go); Department of Educ. of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d at 813 (EHA does not require that states provide the best possible education for handicapped children). Because the Act requires the state to establish priorities for providing a free appropriate public education to all handicapped children, we find that Congress intended the states to balance the competing interests of economic necessity, on the one hand, and the special needs of a handicapped child, on the other, when making education placement decisions. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(3); Doe v. Anrig, 692 F.2d 800, 806 (1st Cir.1982) (in determining appropriate placement of an individual handicapped child, the child's needs must be weighed against the realities of limited public monies); Pinkerton v. Moye, 509 F.Supp. at 112 (competing interests must be balanced to reach a reasonable accommodation). Consequently, in reviewing the defendant's placement decision, the district court correctly considered these factors and properly found that the program offered at Annandale was appropriate.