Allison Porreca
Court Brief #1:
Citation: Hartmann by Hartmann v. Loudoun County Bd. of Educ., 118 F.3d 996, 1997
Topic: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Least Restrictive Environment for
students with Autism (1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16795 ).
Relief
Sought: The Plaintiffs, two parents brought suit against the Board of Education, on behalf of their son
under Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA). The parents alleged that the new IEP issued
for their son who is autistic, failed to ensure that the child was educated with non- handicapped children
to the maximum extent appropriate. The Plaintiffs brought the case to due process and went through the
appeal process.
Issue(s): The issues addressed in this case were around inclusion for students with Disabilities,
specifically, IDEA’s mainstreaming provision and making sure that a child was educated
with non- handicapped children to the maximum extent possible.
Facts of Case: Plaintiffs, Roxanna and Joseph Hartmann were parents of an eleven-year-old child with
Autism attended school beginning in Illinois but then moved to Virginia. Mark was enrolled in Ashburn
Elementary, on an IEP was placed in a regular education classroom. The Loudoun district hired an aide,
reduced his general education classroom size, and he received services in both speech and later on in the
year, special education direct services. At the end of the year the IEP team concluded Mark was not
making academic progress in the general education classroom, and the team proposed a classroom
designed for students with autism at a different elementary school. The parents did not approve the
placement, and refused to approved the IEP claiming that it violated the provision of mainstreaming
under IDEA, “to the maximum extent appropriate”, disabled children should be education with children
who were not handicapped (1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16795).
In December of 1994, the issue went to Due Process and the local hearing officer upheld the IEP
that was created in May. In May of 1995, it went to state court, where the review officer agreed with the
Due Process outcome, which the Hartmann’s challenged. During the time the case was in Due Process
and lower court, Mark attended third grade at Ashburn. In December, the parents decided to move to
Montgomery County, Virginia withdraw Mark from Ashburn. In Montgomery County he was placed in
a regular third grade classroom, for the rest of that year as well for his fourth-grade year.
Later on, the district court reversed the hearing officer’s decision and concluded that Mark would
benefit from the regular classroom and the school did not take enough steps to try to include Mark in the
general education classroom. Loudon County then appealed. The court decided that the district court
substituted its own judgement, rather than hearing the school officials. The decision was reversed and
remanded.
Due Process/State: The state upheld the decision from Due process. The state adopted the hearing
officers’ findings and legal analysis that Mark gained no academic benefit from the regular education
classroom.
Finding of District Court: The district court reversed the hearing officer’s decision, rejected the
administrative findings. They concluded that Mark could receive educational benefit in a regular
education classroom, and the board of education did not take enough steps to make an effort to include
Mark in the regular education classroom. The court made the statement that IDEA supports inclusion,
and disruptive behavior shouldn’t be a major factor in deciding the appropriate educational placement.
Decision of Higher Court: The decision was reversed and remanded.
Basis for Ruling: The higher court felt the administrative review process was very comprehensive, and
the judgement to place Mark in a partially mainstreamed program made by local educators should have
been respected. The district court failed to regard the comprehensive work and disregarded the decision
of the hearing officer.
The district court's ruling strayed generally from the aforementioned principles. It
diverged in particular from our decision in DeVries v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 882 F.2d
876 (4th Cir. 1989). The IDEA encourages mainstreaming, but only to the extent that it
does not prevent a child from receiving educational benefit. The evidence in this case
demonstrates that Mark Hartmann was not making academic progress in a
regular education classroom despite the provision of adequate supplementary aids and
services. In rejecting reasonable pedagogical choices and disregarding well-supported
administrative findings, the district court assumed an educational mantle which the IDEA
did not confer. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded with
directions to dismiss it. (1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16795).
Quotable Statement: “The IDEA encourages mainstreaming, but only to the extent that it does not
prevent a child from receiving educational benefit.” ~ (1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16795 ).
References:
Hartmann by Hartmann v. Loudoun County Bd. of Educ., 118 F.3d 996, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16795
(United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit July 8, 1997, Decided ). https://advance-lexiscom.libproxy.plymouth.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FGF0-00B1D17B-00000-00&context=1516831.
Hartmann by Hartmann v. Loudoun County Bd. of Educ., 118 F.3d 996, 1001, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS
16795, *10 (4th Cir. Va. July 8, 1997)