Opinion ID: 32147
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is as close as possible to the child's home;

Text: 37 (c) Unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled.... 38 The Whites note that placement in 34 C.F.R. § 300.552 appears to have a broader meaning than just educational program (thus, the requirement that placement be based on the IEP, which contains the educational program, along with other requirements) and to relate in some way to location (thus, the reference to distance from the child's home). Ascension responds that placement does not mean a particular school, but means a setting (such as regular classes, special education classes, special schools, home instruction, or hospital or institution-based instruction). It cites 34 C.F.R. § 300.551, which describes placement options as such. This is the better view. 39 In any event, even assuming arguendo that the regulations contemplate a parental right to provide input into the location of services, the facts are undisputed that the Whites did so as part of the IEP team that discussed location at length and that ultimately selected the centralized site. To accept the Whites' view of input would grant parents a veto power over IEP teams' site selection decisions. Congress could have included that power in the IDEA; it did not do so. The right to provide meaningful input is simply not the right to dictate an outcome and obviously cannot be measured by such. See, e.g., Blackmon v. Springfield R-XII Sch. Dist., 198 F.3d 648, 656 (8th Cir.1999) (where no serious hamper[ing] of parent's opportunity to participate in the formulation process, IDEA requirement of meaningful parental input satisfied notwithstanding that parent's desired program not selected); Lachman v. Illinois St. Bd. of Educ., 852 F.2d 290, 297 (7th Cir.) ([P]arents, no matter how well-motivated, do not have a right under [the IDEA] to compel a school district to provide a specific program or employ a specific methodology in providing for the education of their handicapped child.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 308, 102 L.Ed.2d 327 (1988). Absent any evidence of bad faith exclusion of the parents or refusal to listen to or consider the Whites' input, Ascension met IDEA requirements with respect to parental input. In short, on this record, Ascension complied with this procedural component. 40