## Facts

- A.S. was a public-school student eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- The Five Town Community School District developed an individualized education program (IEP) and proposed a public-school placement for A.S.
- A.S.’s parent (C.G.) challenged the proposed IEP and placement through IDEA administrative due process procedures, alleging the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and seeking reimbursement for unilateral private placement and related services.
- An IDEA hearing officer ruled for the school district on the core FAPE dispute.
- The federal district court affirmed the administrative result, concluding the IEP and placement were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
- The parent appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district’s proposed IEP and placement were reasonably calculated to provide A.S. a FAPE under the IDEA.
2. Whether the proposed placement satisfied IDEA’s LRE requirement.
3. What level of deference courts should give to administrative findings and school officials’ educational judgments when experts conflict.
4. Whether the parent was entitled to reimbursement for unilateral private placement and services.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed judgment for the school district.
- The court held the IEP and proposed public placement provided FAPE because they were reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit based on A.S.’s needs.
- The court held the placement complied with the LRE requirement, given the district’s use of supports and services to educate A.S. in a more integrated setting.
- The court denied reimbursement because the district offered an appropriate program; unilateral private placement did not shift costs to the district.

## Legal Principles

- An IDEA-compliant IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable educational benefit; it need not maximize the student’s potential or match parental preferences.
- Reviewing courts apply a “modified de novo” approach: independent review with “due weight” to administrative findings, and they should not replace educational policy judgments made by school authorities.
- LRE favors educating students with disabilities alongside nondisabled peers to the extent appropriate, using supplementary aids and services; a more restrictive placement is not required merely because it may be more intensive or preferred.
- Reimbursement for unilateral private placement is available only if the public program denied FAPE; if the district offered FAPE, reimbursement is unavailable even if the private program appears better.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld the district’s IEP and public placement as providing FAPE in the LRE and, because the district’s offer was appropriate, rejected the parent’s claim for reimbursement for unilateral private services and placement.


C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Cmty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2008)