## Facts

- Neill Roncker, a nine-year-old Cincinnati public-school student, was classified as Trainable Mentally Retarded (IQ below 50), required near-constant supervision, and had nonconvulsive seizures controlled by medication.
- School officials considered placing Neill either (a) in a special-education class within a regular public school with some contact with non-disabled peers, or (b) in a separate county school serving only mentally retarded students.
- Neill’s parents opposed the county-school placement and invoked administrative due-process procedures under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA).
- A hearing officer found the district had not met the EHA mainstreaming requirement and ordered placement in a special-education class within a regular public school.
- On appeal, the Ohio State Board of Education concluded Neill needed services available at the county school but also needed some interaction with non-disabled students, and ordered county-school attendance with limited nonacademic contact with non-disabled peers.
- While proceedings were pending, Neill attended a special-education class in a regular public elementary school and joined non-disabled students for lunch, recess, and gym; the record reflected no substantial progress.
- Neill’s parent filed suit in federal district court challenging the segregated placement and the limited mainstreaming ordered.

## Issues

1. What standard must a federal district court apply when reviewing EHA administrative decisions under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2): independent review with “due weight,” or an “abuse of discretion” standard?
2. How should a court evaluate whether a separate, segregated school placement satisfies the EHA requirement that children be educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate (least restrictive environment)?

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit held the district court used an incorrect standard by treating the placement decision as reviewable only for abuse of discretion.
- Under § 1415(e)(2), the district court must review the administrative record independently, may take additional evidence, and decide based on a preponderance of the evidence while giving “due weight” to administrative findings.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration under the proper review standard and the EHA mainstreaming mandate.
- The court instructed that when a segregated program is claimed to be superior, the fact-finder must assess whether the services making it superior can feasibly be provided in a less segregated setting.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review under the EHA requires an independent, evidence-based decision on the record (and any additional evidence admitted), not a deferential abuse-of-discretion approach; administrative findings receive “due weight,” not controlling effect.
- The EHA’s mainstreaming/least restrictive environment requirement permits removal from the regular educational environment only when education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
- When a segregated placement is justified as better, the proper inquiry includes whether the benefits or services offered there are “portable” to a more integrated setting; if so, the more integrated placement is preferred.
- Educational authorities have discretion in placement decisions, but that discretion is constrained by the EHA’s procedural protections and substantive rights, including the least restrictive environment requirement.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court improperly deferred to the school district; federal courts must independently evaluate, with due weight to administrative proceedings, whether a proposed segregated placement complies with the EHA’s least restrictive environment requirement, including whether superior segregated services can be provided in a more integrated setting.


Roncker ex rel. Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983)