Summary: http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed.htm
Ruling: http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/oberti.htm
Overview
Rafael Oberti, a young boy with Down syndrome, was 5 going on 6 in 1989-1990 and living in southern New Jersey. In accordance with federal and state law, Rafael was evaluated before entering kindergarten by the Clementon School District. The district recommended that Rafael’s parents place him in a segregated special education class for the school year. After visiting various school placement opportunities for Rafael, his dissatisfied parents and the school district agreed to allow Rafael to attend a pre-kindergarten developmental class within the Clementon School District in the mornings, and attend a special education class outside of the school district in the afternoons.
- although Rafael’s parents requested a teacher’s aide (required by federal law) in the beginning of the school year, the district did not place an aide in the morning classroom until March of 1990, only a few months before the end of the school year
- Because Rafael exhibited numerous behavior problems in the classroom including spitting and hitting the other children and the teacher herself, the teacher attempted to discuss behavior management with members of the district
o However, Rafael’s insufficient IEP provided no behavior plan or consultation opportunities for his teacher
- Rafael was placed in a special education classroom in another district for the following school year (1990-91) where he made academic and behavior improvements
o Rafael’s parents, however, soon realized that the Clementon School District was making no plans to eventually mainstream Rafael, and they proceeded to file a complaint against the district
- The New Jersey Office of Administrative Law ruled against the Obertis, claiming that the special education class was, in fact, the “least restrictive environment” for Rafael
o The Obertis promptly appealed to Federal District Court
- In May of 1993, the Obertis won their case and The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, agreed that Rafael Oberti had the right to be educated in a mainstream classroom at the Elementary school in the Clementon School District of New Jersey
- This case is important and continues to be referenced because the Court concluded that schools were required to make satisfactory efforts to mainstream disabled students or be able to explain why not
Describe the arguments of each of the parties:
Parent/student arguments
The Obertis argued that they wanted to build on what Rafael could do--not emphasize what he couldn't. In describing Rafael's initial experience in a self-contained special education room, Mrs. Oberti recalled "I remember when I walked into that classroom the first day. It was like walking into a black and white film, as opposed to the other classroom that was just colors and sounds and light and joy and learning." The Obertis argued that Rafael’s disruptive problems in kindergarten were because the school system did not hire an aide for him. They believed that his social and academic progress lagged behind because he was in a self-contained special education classroom. After the initial New Jersey ruling against their case, Mrs. Oberti home schooled her son. She felt she was successful in teaching Rafael sight words despite the school telling her he could not learn to read.
During the Federal trial, the Obertis presented evidence from two experts and a videotape from the mother of a nine year old child with Down's syndrome who had been successfully mainstreamed in a regular classroom.
1. Dr. Lou Brown, a professor of special education at the University of Wisconsin, testified that he saw no reason why Rafael should not be educated in a regular classroom with appropriate supplementary aids and services. Since it had been over two years since the incidents in kindergarten, he did not believe Rafael would be disruptive. He testified that a regular classroom setting would a provide Rafael with the opportunity to develop social relationships with non disabled students and learn by imitating these role models. He testified these opportunities would not be available in a segregated, special education setting. Dr Brown also testified that with proper training a regular classroom teacher would be able to communicate and teach Rafael effectively.
2. Amy Goldman, an expert in communication with children with developmental disabilities, testified that Rafael’s needs would be most effectively met in a regular classroom with a speech and language instructor collaborating with the regular classroom teacher and working with Rafael in the classroom. She testified that because of Rafael’s' disabilities, he would have great difficulty transferring skills learned in a separate speech setting.
The Obertis believed it was important to have their son educated in a regular classroom for his future in the community and eventual employment. They also point out that. "Teaching non-disabled children to work and communicate with children with disabilities may do much to eliminate the stigma, mistrust and hostility that have traditionally been harbored against persons with disabilities."
School System Arguments
The school district offered expert Dr. Stanley Uban. He observed,
Rafael in special education classes for perceptually impaired children in St Lukes School for 2 months in 1991
Rafael at home
Programs available at Clementon Elementary School educational records
Written opinion of other experts
Dr Stanley concluded that:
Rafael’s behavior problems could not be managed in a regular classroom
A regular teacher would not be able to communicate with a child of Rafael’s ability
Accommodating a first grade level curriculum for the classroom would adversely impact the education of other children in the class
Without serious behavior problems, Rafael might be integrated successfully
The findings
Overti vs. Board of Education deals with several elements of IDEA. Perhaps the most important issue that it raises, however, is Rafael’s right to be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. The local school district determined that Rafael’s needs could not be met in their schools, and had him placed in a special education program in another district. He had no contact with nondisabled peers. This was done despite the Oberti’s desire to not only have him stay in their neighborhood school, but also to be included in a mainstream class with the assistance of a qualified aid.
After receiving evidence from the school district, expert witnesses from both sides, and parental testimony, the court ultimately decided that the school district had violated IDEA by not placing Rafael in a classroom with nondisabled peers and instructional aids. Furthermore, it deemed evidence in an earlier decision to be "improperly based upon Rafael's behavior problems in the developmental kindergarten as well as upon his intellectual limitations, without proper consideration of the inadequate level of supplementary aids and services provided by the School District". The also court cited discrimination under Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act, a statute often involved in special education cases. Sufficient evidence proved that with proper training, instructors and aids in regular classrooms at Rafael's neighborhood school would be able to meet his needs, appropriately manage his behavior, and help him to meet his IEP goals.