Appellate Court Upholds Decision That Therapeutic Day School Is Not Student’s Least Restrictive Environment


In Porter v. Illinois State Board of Education, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld an Illinois State Board of Education special education hearing officer’s decision that a therapeutic day school was not a student’s least restrictive environment, because the student could “receive a satisfactory education” at a [d]istrict school while also having “contact with her typically developing peers during the school day.” The decision is an important reminder of some factors that a court may consider when determining whether a school district has adhered to the requirement to educate students in the least restrictive environment.

In Porter, a parent filed a due process challenge to her daughter’s individualized education program (IEP). The parent sought to have the student placed at a separate school offering multisensory instruction for students with learning disabilities. The district modified the IEP, addressing some of the parent’s concerns, but ultimately concluded that the alternative placement was not justified. The district determined that the student would be best served by attending regular classes at the public school, spending only 25% of her school day in a separate classroom.

In finding that a therapeutic day school was not the student’s least restrictive environment, the hearing officer relied on a recent decision from the Northern District of Illinois, James D. v. Board of Education of Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District No. 102, which held that a private therapeutic day school was not an appropriate placement where a student could receive a satisfactory education in a public school placement while spending 70% of his day in a separate classroom. The hearing officer also relied on the fact that the district had offered to provide the same programming that the parent was seeking in the public school and that the parent’s witness testified to the student’s ability to complete specialized programming at the public school in a year, which would bring her up to speed. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the hearing officer’s decision that the district could offer the student a satisfactory education without placing the student at a therapeutic day school, especially in light of the district’s offer to administer multi-sensory instruction and other programming at the public school.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Franczek Radelet P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.