## Facts

- P., a child with Down syndrome, a hearing impairment, and significant health issues, attended public school in Newington, Connecticut.
- The school provided extensive supports, including speech, physical, and occupational therapy, special-education teachers, and one-on-one paraprofessional assistance.
- The dispute concerned how much of P.’s school day should be spent in a regular classroom versus special-education settings.
- For the 2005–2006 school year, the district and P.’s parents negotiated changes that increased P.’s regular-classroom time to roughly 80% of the day with supports, but the parents contended the plan still violated IDEA’s least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement.
- An administrative hearing officer upheld the 2005–2006 IEP as compliant with IDEA’s LRE mandate (while finding an earlier IEP deficient).
- The federal district court affirmed and entered summary judgment for the school district.

## Issues

1. What standard governs whether an IEP satisfies IDEA’s requirement that a student be educated with nondisabled peers in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate.
2. Whether P.’s 2005–2006 IEP complied with IDEA’s LRE requirement while providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the Newington Board of Education.
- The court adopted a two-pronged, fact-specific LRE analysis used by other circuits.
- Applying that framework, the court held the 2005–2006 IEP satisfied IDEA because the district made reasonable efforts to educate P. in the regular classroom with supports and used pull-out services only as justified by P.’s needs.
- The court rejected any presumption that IDEA requires a fixed inclusion percentage (including an “80%” benchmark).

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires both FAPE and education in the LRE: students with disabilities must be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, using supplementary aids and services when needed.
- LRE compliance requires a flexible, fact-specific, individualized inquiry:
  - whether education in the regular classroom can be achieved satisfactorily with appropriate supplemental aids and services; and
  - if not, whether the school has included the student in regular classes, programs, and activities to the maximum extent appropriate.
- LRE analysis is not a mechanical or quota-based calculation; it must account for the child’s needs and the appropriateness and effectiveness of regular-classroom placement with supports.
- Courts give due weight to administrative findings and avoid substituting judicial preferences for reasonable educational judgments when IDEA’s substantive and procedural requirements are met.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed that Newington’s 2005–2006 IEP provided P. FAPE in the least restrictive environment and established, for the circuit, a two-step, individualized LRE test that rejects fixed mainstreaming percentages in favor of fact-driven evaluation.


P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008)