In the case of Knox Cty. v. M.Q., 62 F.4th 978 (6th Cir.2023), a federal appellate court held that (1) the school violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (“IDEA”) mandate that students receive their education in the least restrictive environment when the school tried to place the student in a comprehensive development classroom (“CDC-A”) classroom rather than in a general education classroom and (2) the school did not discriminate against the student by attempting to place the student in the CDC-A classroom.
In this case, the student argued that (1) the student was able to make progress in a general education classroom when the classroom was modified for the student’s needs, the modifications were possible, and the general education classroom provided non-academic benefits, such as improved the student’s interpersonal and self-regulation skills and (2) the school discriminated against the student by placing the student in an inherently unreasonable accommodation instead of the least restrictive environment. In response, the school argued that (1) the student’s needs prevented the student from making appropriate progress in a general educational classroom and the CDC-A classroom was ideal because it would allow the education to be tailored for the student and (2) the school did not intentionally discriminate against the student as the CDC-A classroom was a reasonable accommodation. The federal appellate court agreed with the student on the least restrictive environment claim and with the school on the discrimination claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the student on the least restrictive environment claim, the federal appellate court explained that the student had shown the ability to succeed in a general education classroom with the use of supplementary aids and services, and that these supports could be integrated into a general education classroom. The federal appellate court further explained that a mainstream classroom provided the student with numerous benefits, and these benefits were not far outweighed by the benefits of the CDC-A classroom.
In support of its decision in favor of the school on the discrimination claim, the federal appellate court explained that “[i]n the education context, a showing of discrimination requires evidence of something more than a school district’s failure to provide a [free and appropriate public education].” Opinion and Order at 21. The federal appellate court further explained that the school was required to provide the student with reasonable accommodations for the student’s learning deficits—not the best or preferred accommodations—and the CDC-A classroom was a reasonable accommodation.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.