## Facts

- K.B., a preschool-age child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, was found eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- The school district proposed an individualized education program (IEP) placing K.B. at a special-education preschool (Park View) for about 10 classroom hours per week, with 8–15 hours per week of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA).
- K.B.’s parents rejected the proposed placement and unilaterally placed K.B. in a mainstream private preschool with an intensive, home-based ABA program of about 40 hours per week, which they paid for.
- The parents sought reimbursement, asserting the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
- An impartial hearing officer (IHO) ruled for the district; the parents challenged the IHO’s impartiality based on his employment in another district and a claimed connection between his spouse and the district’s expert witness.
- The federal district court affirmed the IHO on both impartiality and the substantive IDEA dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether the IHO was “impartial” under IDEA despite the parents’ asserted appearance-of-bias concerns.
2. Whether the district’s proposed placement and level of ABA satisfied IDEA’s LRE requirement and thus provided a substantively appropriate FAPE.
3. If the district’s offer violated IDEA, whether the parents’ unilateral mainstream placement with intensive ABA was appropriate such that reimbursement could be awarded, subject to equitable limits.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the ruling that the IHO was impartial because he was not employed by the district responsible for K.B.’s education and the alleged relationship to a witness was too attenuated and unsupported by evidence of bias.
- The court reversed on the substantive IDEA claim, holding that the district’s proposed Park View program did not satisfy IDEA’s LRE requirement for K.B. and therefore did not offer a substantively appropriate FAPE.
- The court held the parents could seek reimbursement for the private mainstream preschool and intensive ABA program, subject to equitable considerations on remand.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires an impartial due process hearing officer who is not an employee of the agency responsible for the child’s education and lacks interests that conflict with objective decisionmaking; speculative or indirect professional connections, without evidence of bias, do not require disqualification.
- A FAPE must be provided in the least restrictive environment: removal from regular education is permitted only when education in regular classes, with supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
- LRE analysis considers academic and non-academic benefits of mainstreaming, the effect of the child on the classroom, and the cost of supplementary aids and services.
- Parents may obtain reimbursement for unilateral private placement when the public placement violates IDEA and the private placement is appropriate, with reimbursement subject to equitable adjustment.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld the hearing officer’s impartiality but concluded the district’s proposed preschool program was too restrictive for K.B. under IDEA’s LRE mandate, allowing the parents to pursue reimbursement for a mainstream placement with intensive ABA, subject to equitable limits on remand.


L.B. ex rel. K.B. v. Nebo Sch. Dist., 379 F.3d 966 (10th Cir. 2004)