To ensure that students with disabilities receive the education they are entitled to, school districts must provide supplementary aids and services that allow these students to be integrated into general education settings. This obligation is rooted in several key court decisions that emphasize meaningful inclusion and appropriate support for students with disabilities.
Oberti v. Board of Education
In Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., the court underscored the importance of districts taking meaningful steps to include students with disabilities in general education classrooms. The decision emphasized that schools must actively provide supplementary aids and services to facilitate the inclusion of these students in general education settings.[1]
Daniel R.R. v. El Paso Independent School District
Similarly, the court in Daniel R.R. v. El Paso Independent School District highlighted that the law does not permit schools to make mere token gestures in their efforts to accommodate students with disabilities. Instead, the requirement to modify and supplement general education environments must be broad and substantial.[2]
Roncker v. Walter
The Roncker v. Walter decision further elaborated on the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)principle, stating that when a segregated setting is considered academically superior, the court must determine whether the services making the segregated setting beneficial could be feasibly provided in a less restrictive, non-segregated setting. If so, the segregated placement would be inappropriate under the law. Moreover, while cost is one of the factors in the Rachel H. decision in deciding placement, it cannot be used as a defense if the school district fails to provide a proper continuum of placement options.[3]
Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel Holland (Rachel H.)
In Rachel H., the court acknowledged that cost is a consideration but held that mainstreaming with aids like a part-time instructional aide and curriculum modifications would not be significantly more expensive than a special education placement. It reaffirmed that insufficient funding cannot be a justification for denying needed services unless the cost would severely impact the education of other students in the district.[4]
Thus, while cost may be considered in placement decisions, districts are required to provide appropriate supports in less restrictive environments whenever feasible. All these cases establish that the presumption in favor of inclusion should prevail unless substantial reasons justify a more restrictive setting.