## Facts

- D.R., a child with autism, attended an elementary school in the Redondo Beach Unified School District.
- Before third grade, D.R.’s parents and the District agreed to an individualized education program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) placing D.R. in a regular classroom for 75% of the school day and in a special-education classroom for 25%.
- Before fourth grade, the District recommended increasing D.R.’s time in the special-education classroom to 56% of the day; D.R.’s parents did not agree.
- Before fifth grade, the District conducted its annual IEP review and found D.R. had met four academic goals and was making progress on two others.
- The District also noted D.R. had made friends with nondisabled peers and was not disruptive in class.
- At the same time, the District observed D.R. was several grade levels behind his nondisabled peers academically and was not learning from regular-classroom instruction.
- The District concluded D.R.’s regular-classroom instruction was provided almost entirely by a one-on-one behavioral aide rather than the general-education teacher’s instruction.
- To provide D.R. a more tailored curriculum, the District again proposed changing the IEP to place him in the special-education classroom for 56% of the day.
- D.R.’s parents requested a due process hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings, asserting the proposed IEP violated IDEA’s least-restrictive-environment (LRE) requirement.
- An administrative-law judge ruled for the District, and the federal district court affirmed; the parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the District’s proposed IEP placement increasing D.R.’s time in a special-education classroom to 56% of the school day violated IDEA’s least-restrictive-environment requirement.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the administrative decision in the District’s favor.
- The court concluded the challenged IEP placement satisfied IDEA’s LRE requirement on this record, even though it reduced D.R.’s time in the general-education classroom.
- The court accepted that, despite D.R.’s social success and some progress toward IEP goals, the District had a supported basis for concluding D.R. was not receiving meaningful educational benefit from general-education instruction as delivered in practice and required a setting with a more tailored curriculum for a substantial part of the day.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires that children with disabilities be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate; removal from the regular educational setting is permitted only when education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
- In assessing LRE disputes, courts in the Ninth Circuit evaluate whether the student can be educated satisfactorily in the regular classroom with supports and, if not, whether the school mainstreamed the student to the maximum extent appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances.
- Administrative findings in IDEA cases receive “due weight” in subsequent judicial review; district courts and courts of appeals review the record while respecting supported educational judgments reflected in the administrative decision.

## Conclusion

D.R.’s parents challenged the District’s proposed IEP that would increase D.R.’s time in a special-education classroom to 56% of the school day, arguing it violated IDEA’s least-restrictive-environment requirement. After the administrative-law judge and the district court ruled for the District, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the placement decision complied with IDEA’s LRE mandate on the facts presented, given the District’s supported determination that D.R. was not meaningfully accessing general-education instruction and needed a more tailored curriculum for a significant portion of the day.


D.R. by and through R.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School District, 56 F.4th 636 (2022)