Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989)

By Alma Chow

Overview

In Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that if a child with a disability can find educational benefit in a regular classroom setting with supplementary aid and services without being disruptive to the rest of the class, they should be allowed to remain in the classroom. If not, schools should still try to mainstream to the maximum extent possible. Mainstreaming is the practice of educating a child with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, placing students with special education needs in general ‌education environments. Mainstreaming is a requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), previously the Education of Handicapped Act (EHA). 

Summary

In 1985, a six-year-old boy with Down syndrome, Daniel R., was enrolled in a half-day Early Childhood Program dedicated to special education in the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD). After a year in the program, Daniel’s parents requested he be enrolled in a half-day pre-kindergarten regular education class, in addition to the Early Childhood Program in the 1986-1987 school year.

Soon after the new school year started, the regular pre-kindergarten education noticed that Daniel did not learn any of the skills taught and did not participate in class without constant individual attention from the teacher or the teacher’s aide. The teacher also recognized that modifying the curriculum to fit Daniel’s needs would make the curriculum unrecognizable. By November of 1986, the EPISD Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committee concluded that the pre-kindergarten class did not benefit Daniel educationally and decided to change his placement back to only the Early Childhood Program but still allowed Daniel to interact with non-handicapped children during lunch and recess. 

Daniel’s family believed that the ARD decision was unfair and appealed to a hearing officer who agreed with ARD’s decision. Unsatisfied, Daniel’s parents then filed a suit in the district court under the Rights of the EHA, claiming that the EPISD violated the LRE requirement. In 1989, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school district, citing that despite reasonable efforts of accommodation, Daniel was not benefiting from general education. The court did not use the test previously established in Ronker v. Walter and instead then developed its own approach for the LRE decision, emphasizing that while inclusion is preferable, if after making appropriate steps to accommodate, schools are not obligated to mainstream a child who is unable to make substantial progress.

Impact

Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education is a landmark case that defined the standards for whether a child with disabilities should be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE) and provided the courts with a two-part test to consider. The Daniel R. R. Test is still currency used in the Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh District Circuits courts. 

The Daniel R. R. Test first considers if education in a regular classroom can be satisfactory with the use of supplemental aids and services. If not, the courts must consider if “the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate”. More factors to consider are whether the child benefits educationally from general education if the state has made steps for accommodations, the overall mainstream experience, and their impact on peers. 

Court Documents

Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989) Ruling from US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

IDEA Series: The Segregation of Students with Disabilities 

Least Restrictive Environment and Case Law: What the Courts Are Saying about Inclusion

Citations

Casetext. (1989, June 12). Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ. https://casetext.com/case/daniel-rr-v-state-bd-of-educ/ 

Legal Information Institute (LII). (n.d.).https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mainstreaming. 

Justia Law. (1989).https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/874/1036/382507/. 

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). (1994). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED386005.pdf. 

U.S. National Council on Disability. (2018, February 7).http://govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y3_D63_3-PURL-gpo153964/pdf/GOVPUB-Y3_D63_3-PURL-gpo153964.pdf