Which case ruled that home bound instruction for a student with multiple health problems did not comply with the LRE and required placement in a class with non-disabled children and receive the necessary related medical services?

Which case ruled that home bound instruction for a student with multiple health problems did not comply with the LRE and required placement in a class with non-disabled children and receive the necessary related medical services?

• A. Endrew F. v. Douglas County
• B. PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• C. Oberti v. Board of Education (1993)
• D. Department of Education v. Katherine D. (1984)

Answer: (D)

The main idea here is that the least restrictive environment (LRE) requires students with disabilities to be educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, with the necessary supports and services to make that placement workable. In this case, the ruling held that keeping a student with multiple health problems in homebound instruction did not meet FAPE under the LRE. Instead, the school district was required to place the student in a regular classroom with non-disabled peers and provide the needed related medical services (such as nursing or other health supports) so the student could participate in the general education curriculum. This emphasizes that inclusion in the regular education setting is preferred when feasible, and related services should be provided within that setting to enable access to the same educational opportunities as peers. Homebound instruction is not automatically sufficient if the student can benefit from, and the district can reasonably provide, a mainstream placement with appropriate supports.

The main idea here is that the least restrictive environment (LRE) requires students with disabilities to be educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, with the necessary supports and services to make that placement workable. In this case, the ruling held that keeping a student with multiple health problems in homebound instruction did not meet FAPE under the LRE. Instead, the school district was required to place the student in a regular classroom with non-disabled peers and provide the needed related medical services (such as nursing or other health supports) so the student could participate in the general education curriculum. This emphasizes that inclusion in the regular education setting is preferred when feasible, and related services should be provided within that setting to enable access to the same educational opportunities as peers. Homebound instruction is not automatically sufficient if the student can benefit from, and the district can reasonably provide, a mainstream placement with appropriate supports.