OBERTI v. BOARD OF EDUC., 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993) RAFAEL OBERTI, BY HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, CARLOS AND JEANNE OBERTI; CARLOS OBERTI; JEANNE OBERTI, APPELLEES, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF CLEMENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT; WILLIAM SHERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE BOROUGH OF CLEMENTON; JAMES P. DAILEY; SARA A. PARANZINO; ROBERT H. MORAN; JAMES D. MURRAY; IRENE J. BUCHALTER; HARRY F. GAHM; EARL F. HETTEL; ORA LEE WOOSTER, III; WILLIAM NORCROSS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF CLEMENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEVEN K. LEIBRAND, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF CLEMENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, WILLIAM SHERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE BOROUGH OF CLEMENTON, STEVEN K. LEIBRAND, EARL F. HETTEL, SARA A. PARANZINO, ROBERT H. MORAN, JAMES D. MURRAY, HARRY F. GAHM, IRENE J. BUCHALTER, ORA LEE WOOSTER, III, AND WILLIAM NORCROSS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF CLEMENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLANTS. No. 92-5462.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued March 9, 1993. Decided May 28, 1993.

Facts: Rafael Oberti is an 8 year old child with Down’s Syndrome. During his kindergarten year, he was educated in the regular classroom for part of the day and in a special education classroom for the other part of the day. Rafael’s behaviors eventually became problematic enough that the school decided to withdraw Rafael from mainstream class and have him educated in a segregated classroom 100% of the time. In this classroom, Rafael did improve behavior, but parents became concerned that he was in a segregated class, and that there appeared to be no plans to return him to the mainstream. The Oberti’s brought a due process complaint, saying that they wanted Rafael to be educated with non-disabled peers in his neighborhood school. The district maintained that Rafael was “not ready” for the mainstream yet.

In reaching a decision, the ALJ (administrative law judge) discounted the testimony of Dr. Gail McGregor, who testified that Rafael could be educated in the mainstream with supplementary aids and services, and that he would learn important skills in the mainstream class that he could not learn in a segregated setting. It was determined that the current placement of Rafael in the segregated setting was in compliance with IDEA.

The parents sought an independent review of the ALJ’s decision. The school board moved for summary judgment, but the district court decided that a full review was in order, and both sides submitted new evidence.

The evidence included videotapes showing that given appropriate supplementary aids and services, Rafael could function in the mainstream environment and receive educational benefit.

Issue: Can Rafael receive educational benefit in the mainstream setting if he receives supplementary aids and services?

Holding: The court of appeals affirms the district court ruling that the school district has failed to comply with IDEA, and that the school design a more appropriate IEP for Rafael in accordance with IDEA, specifically, that they provide the necessary supplementary services and aids so Rafael can be educated in the LRE.

Reasoning: It was demonstrated adequately that Rafael can, in fact, benefit from education in the mainstream environment if he receives adequate supplementary aids and services. The school is responsible for providing those services under the IDEA, in order for Rafael to be educated in the LRE.