## Facts

- R.H., a preschool child with suspected autism and a speech impairment, received early intervention services before entering the public school system.
- Plano Independent School District (PISD) developed an IEP placing R.H. at Beaty Early Childhood School in a special-education preschool class with related services, including speech therapy.
- R.H.’s parents removed him from Beaty and unilaterally enrolled him at a private preschool (TLC) that was fully mainstreamed and did not have a speech therapist on staff.
- PISD personnel testified the IEP required a low staff-to-student ratio, instruction by a special-education teacher knowledgeable about autism, and regular collaboration with a speech therapist.
- PISD considered a fully mainstreamed placement but concluded it could not ensure implementation of R.H.’s IEP in a regular private-school setting without district supervision.

## Issues

1. Whether PISD denied R.H. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to educate him in the least restrictive environment (LRE), entitling his parents to private tuition reimbursement under the IDEA.
2. What level of deference federal courts owe to an IDEA hearing officer’s findings when reviewing an administrative decision.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the hearing officer’s decision.
- The court held PISD provided R.H. a FAPE and satisfied the IDEA’s LRE requirement.
- Because the public IEP and placement were appropriate under the IDEA, the parents were not entitled to tuition reimbursement for TLC.

## Legal Principles

- A FAPE requires an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit; the IDEA does not require an optimal or maximizing program.
- Educational benefit must be more than trivial; the program must be likely to produce progress rather than regression.
- The IDEA’s LRE requirement calls for educating children with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate; removal from the regular classroom is permitted when satisfactory education there cannot be achieved even with supplementary aids and services.
- In assessing LRE compliance, courts apply a two-part inquiry: whether satisfactory education in the regular classroom is feasible with supports, and if not, whether the child is mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate.
- In IDEA appeals, the district court gives due weight to the hearing officer’s findings but makes an independent decision based on a preponderance of the evidence; on further appeal, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and factual findings for clear error.
- Tuition reimbursement for unilateral private placement requires a showing that the public school failed to provide a FAPE; without that showing, reimbursement is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that PISD reasonably determined R.H.’s IEP could not be implemented satisfactorily in a fully mainstreamed private preschool and that the Beaty placement provided a FAPE in the LRE, defeating the parents’ reimbursement claim.


R.H. v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 607 F.3d 1003 (5th Cir. 2010)