P. v. Newington Board of Education (2008)

By Maia Challapalli

OVERVIEW 

The plaintiff, a child with Down Syndrome, was attending a public school in Newington, Connecticut. His parents contended that his 2005-2006 Individualized Education Plan (IEP) failed to satisfy the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because he was not placed in a regular classroom for a sufficient amount of time. The U.S. District Court in Connecticut upheld the hearing officer’s decision, which favored the Newington Board of Education. This case was appealed and sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This court case raised the issue of whether the Individualized Education Plan for 2005-2006 complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requirement to place a child with a disability in the least restrictive environment in school.

SUMMARY

P. was a child with Down Syndrome, a hearing impairment, and other serious health concerns, who attended Anna Reynolds Elementary School in Newington, Connecticut. In 2004, P.’s behavioral consultant informed his parents that his education in the regular classroom was becoming increasingly difficult due to a widening ability gap. His parents disagreed and wanted him in the regular classroom at least 80% of the time. The 2004-2005 IEP provided P. with 60% of regular classroom education with pullout services for occupational therapy and speech therapy, but zero behavior management. P.’s parents advocated for another consultant and additional opinions on how P.’s educational plan should be changed. There was a consultant specializing in inclusion, a psychological evaluation completed by Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, his second-grade teacher, the special education teacher, and the Performance Planning Committee. His consultant conducted a 4-hour test in both the regular and special education classrooms. Many of these individuals felt that P. would improve the most by increasing his time in the regular classroom over a longer period of time and with specialized instruction. Each test and employee played a pivotal role in P.’s IEP and the quality of education and inclusion he was receiving.

The 2005-2006 IEP allocated 74% of the school day to regular classroom placement, including participation in all regular classes, with specific accommodations for fatigue, behavior, etc. This IEP differed from the 2004-2005 plan because it included adult assistance in all regular classrooms, assistive computer programs, weekly consultations with both the special education and regular education teachers, and more. In June 2005, P.’s parents requested an administrative hearing to challenge the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 IEPs. The hearing officer found the 2004-2005 IEP noncompliant with the IDEA, yet concluded the 2005-2006 IEP met the legal requirements. The court used a two-pronged test to determine the appropriate amount of time P. can spend in a regular classroom while receiving the education that is best for him. After applying the test, the evidence supported the hearing officer’s ruling, and the court approved P.’s 2005-2006 IEP.

IMPACT

The court applied a two-tier test to determine whether students’ IEPs met the IDEA's requirements for placement in the least restrictive environment. The first tier is to examine whether regular classroom education is sufficient for a student to achieve with proper support and accommodations. The second tier determines if the student is spending the maximum amount of time in the mainstream classroom and other areas, such as the lunchroom and recess. This test was conducted to ensure that all students with disabilities receive the appropriate amount of time and opportunities for inclusion with their non-disabled peers. Additionally, the Educational Board implemented a rule that requires an inclusion consultant with experience placing children with mental disabilities in regular classes and a functional behavioral assessment. The test was satisfactory, and the court ruled that this specific case complied with the IDEA, amplifying the underlying issue of student-specific accommodations in the educational setting.

COURT DOCUMENTS

P. by his Parents v. Newington Bd of Ed., No. 07-4652 (2d Cir. 2008), Justia.

CITATIONS

P. V. Newington Board – case brief summary – facts, issue, holding & reasoning – studicata. studicata.com. (n.d.). https://www.studicata.com/case-briefs/case/p-v-newington-bd