## Facts

- Daniel R.R., a six-year-old child with Down syndrome, had significant cognitive and speech impairments and functioned at roughly a two- to three-year-old developmental level.
- He attended a half-day early childhood program that was entirely special education within the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD).
- At his parents’ request, EPISD tried a combined placement: half day in special education and half day in a regular pre-kindergarten classroom.
- In the regular classroom, Daniel required near-constant one-on-one attention from the teacher and aide.
- The teacher attempted to modify curriculum and teaching methods, but fully accommodating Daniel would have required altering most of the regular curriculum.
- Daniel did not master the skills taught in the regular class; the added half day fatigued him and contributed to a stutter.
- EPISD ended the regular-class placement and returned Daniel to full-time special education, while continuing integration with nondisabled peers during lunch and recess.
- Daniel’s parents challenged the placement as inconsistent with federal mainstreaming requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether EPISD violated the Education of the Handicapped Act’s least restrictive environment requirement by removing Daniel from the regular pre-kindergarten classroom rather than educating him with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.
2. What framework courts should use to evaluate whether a district has satisfied the least restrictive environment mandate while still providing a free appropriate public education.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for EPISD.
- The court held Daniel could not be satisfactorily educated in the regular classroom even with supplementary aids and services.
- The court further held EPISD satisfied the least restrictive environment requirement by integrating Daniel to the maximum extent appropriate through participation with nondisabled students in nonacademic settings (lunch and recess).

## Legal Principles

- The EHA requires a free appropriate public education and, to the maximum extent appropriate, education with nondisabled peers in the least restrictive environment; the preference for mainstreaming is qualified by what is appropriate for the individual child.
- Two-part least restrictive environment test:
  - First, determine whether education in the regular classroom, with supplementary aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily, considering academic and nonacademic benefits, the effect on the teacher and other students, and the school’s efforts to accommodate the child.
  - Second, if satisfactory regular-class education is not feasible, determine whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate, including integration in nonacademic and extracurricular activities.
- A district does not violate the least restrictive environment mandate when substantial modifications would effectively transform the regular program and the child receives minimal educational benefit in that setting, so long as the child is integrated where appropriate.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld EPISD’s decision to place Daniel full-time in special education after an unsuccessful trial of partial regular-class placement, and it articulated a two-step framework for assessing least restrictive environment compliance that balances mainstreaming with the obligation to provide an individualized appropriate education.


Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989)