Guardian objects to student's placement in special education classroom

School officials proposed removing a Texas student with dyslexia who had classroom accommodations “described as unique within his school district for their magnitude” from a mainstream classroom to a special education classroom for English and math. 

The student had “excellent grades and … a spotless disciplinary record.” However, his teachers testified that the student did not actually understand the material and “had not made much progress” in his classes. One teacher said he “had to spend up to 85% of class time” with the student “despite there being five other special education students in the class.”

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there is a presumption in favor of placing students in a mainstream classroom environment. Placement outside general education classrooms is only appropriate if a child cannot achieve a satisfactory education even with supplementary aids and services. However, school administrators determined that, even with accommodations, the student “could not ‘grasp the essential elements of the regular education curriculum’ in both math and English.”

The student’s guardian objected to the student’s proposed placement in a special education classroom and requested a hearing under IDEA. He argued that the proposed placement would not provide the student with a free appropriate public education. 

A hearing officer concluded that the district was justified in putting the student in a separate math class but that English should be taught in a general education setting. The student’s guardian appealed the case to a Texas federal court and then the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Ultimately, the court of appeals decided to “give deference to the school district’s careful consideration of the most appropriate placement” for the student. The court decided that the district’s decision to place the student in special education classrooms for both math and English was correct. The court found that education in a regular classroom — even with significant accommodations — could “not meet the [student’s] unique needs.”