## Facts

- Tyler Murray, a 12-year-old student with cerebral palsy, had significant mental, physical, and speech impairments.
- He lived near Olathe Elementary School, his neighborhood school, which served students with mild-to-moderate needs but was not fully accessible when he entered kindergarten.
- The district developed and implemented Tyler’s IDEA individualized education program (IEP) at Olathe beginning in 1988.
- After repeated reevaluations, district staff concluded Tyler was not making sufficient progress at Olathe and proposed moving him to Northside Elementary, which had programming for students with severe or profound needs.
- Tyler’s parents objected, seeking continued placement at Olathe with supplementary aids and services, citing proximity to home and social ties.
- After an IDEA due-process hearing, an administrative law judge upheld the transfer to Northside.
- The federal district court affirmed the administrative decision; Tyler appealed, and the district cross-appealed the denial of summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the IDEA “least restrictive environment” (LRE) requirement creates a presumption that a child’s neighborhood school is the least restrictive placement.
2. Whether a school district may place a child in a non-neighborhood school when the IEP indicates that an appropriate program is available only at another location.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment upholding Tyler’s placement at Northside Elementary.
- The court held that IDEA’s LRE requirement does not create a legal presumption favoring the neighborhood school.
- The court treated educating the child as close as possible to home as a preference that yields when the IEP requires another arrangement to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
- Based on the administrative record, the court accepted findings that Olathe could not adequately meet Tyler’s needs and that Northside’s specialized program could.

## Legal Principles

- LRE requires education with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate; removal from regular settings is permitted when satisfactory education there cannot be achieved with supplementary aids and services.
- Regulatory language favoring placement close to home reflects a preference, not an entitlement to a neighborhood school.
- The controlling inquiry is individualized: the child must be placed in the least restrictive setting in which the IEP can be implemented to provide FAPE, even if that setting is not the closest school.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld a district’s decision to place a disabled student in a specialized program outside the neighborhood school, concluding that IDEA’s LRE provision does not presume neighborhood placement and that proximity must yield when the IEP requires a different setting to provide FAPE.


Murray v. Montrose Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1J, 51 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 1995)