Which case ruled to support a family preference to educate a child with mental retardation in the general education classroom?

Which case ruled to support a family preference to educate a child with mental retardation in the general education classroom?

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

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is least restrictive environment and honoring family placement preferences when possible. The default goal is to educate students with disabilities in the general education setting with the right supports, and families’ wishes about placement are given serious consideration. In Oberti v. Board of Education (1993), the court said a child with a disability should be educated in the regular classroom with appropriate supplementary aids and services whenever possible. The school bears the burden to justify removing the child to a more restrictive setting, and family preference to keep the child in general education is a strong factor in that decision. This makes Oberti the best match for a question about supporting a family’s desire to educate a child with mental retardation in the general education classroom, as long as the general education environment can meet the child’s needs with supports. Brown v. Board of Education focuses on racial segregation, not disability placement. PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania established a public education right for children with mental retardation and laid groundwork for FAPE and non-discrimination, but it does not directly address honoring family placement preferences in the general education setting. Endrew F. v. Douglas County refined the standard of FAPE toward meaningful progress, but again it centers on the quality and progress of the education rather than the specific parental placement preference in general education.

The main idea here is least restrictive environment and honoring family placement preferences when possible. The default goal is to educate students with disabilities in the general education setting with the right supports, and families’ wishes about placement are given serious consideration.

In Oberti v. Board of Education (1993), the court said a child with a disability should be educated in the regular classroom with appropriate supplementary aids and services whenever possible. The school bears the burden to justify removing the child to a more restrictive setting, and family preference to keep the child in general education is a strong factor in that decision. This makes Oberti the best match for a question about supporting a family’s desire to educate a child with mental retardation in the general education classroom, as long as the general education environment can meet the child’s needs with supports.

Brown v. Board of Education focuses on racial segregation, not disability placement. PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania established a public education right for children with mental retardation and laid groundwork for FAPE and non-discrimination, but it does not directly address honoring family placement preferences in the general education setting. Endrew F. v. Douglas County refined the standard of FAPE toward meaningful progress, but again it centers on the quality and progress of the education rather than the specific parental placement preference in general education.