## Facts

- Edwin and Linda Burilovich sought special education services for their son, B.J., after early language delays.
- A multidisciplinary team evaluated B.J. and developed an IEP providing preprimary impaired services plus speech and language therapy.
- A University of Michigan evaluation diagnosed B.J. with autism; the parents provided a copy to a teacher, but it was not placed in B.J.’s school file.
- The parents started a home-based Discrete Trial Training (Lovaas/DTT) program and urged the school district to adopt an intensive, home-based approach.
- The school district proposed educating B.J. in a mainstream kindergarten with special education supports, which the parents opposed as procedurally and substantively inadequate under the IDEA.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged procedural violations in evaluation and IEP development (including handling of diagnostic information and parental participation) denied B.J. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA.
2. Whether the proposed IEP and mainstream kindergarten placement were substantively appropriate under the IDEA despite not using the parents’ preferred Lovaas/DTT methodology.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district and its special education director.
- The court held that the asserted procedural deficiencies did not amount to a denial of FAPE.
- The court held that the proposed IEP and mainstream kindergarten placement were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and satisfied IDEA requirements, even without adopting the Lovaas/DTT program.
- The court gave due weight to the state administrative review officer’s conclusion that the district complied with IDEA procedures and offered an appropriate IEP.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural violations under the IDEA warrant relief only if they impede the child’s right to FAPE, significantly impede parental participation, or deprive the child of educational benefits.
- An IEP satisfies the IDEA if it is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit; the IDEA does not require maximizing a child’s potential or providing the parents’ preferred program.
- Courts must give due weight to state administrative determinations and avoid substituting judicial preferences for educational judgments.
- The IDEA’s least restrictive environment requirement supports mainstream placement with appropriate aids and services when the child can receive educational benefit in that setting.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the school district’s proposed mainstream kindergarten placement and IEP, concluding that any asserted procedural missteps did not deny FAPE and that the IDEA did not require the district to implement the parents’ preferred intensive, home-based Lovaas/DTT methodology.


Burilovich v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lincoln Consol. Schs., 208 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2000)