Oberti vs. BOE of Clementon School District

1. Oberti vs. BOE of Clementon School District May 1992- May 28, 1993 Amanda Norton, Matt Palmer, Abigail Ricci, Sarah Putman

2. Who and Where? • Rafael Oberti, Carlos and Jeanne Oberti, BOE of the Borough of Clementon School District • New Jersey

3. About the Case • Rafael Oberti is an 8 year old little boy with down syndrome who lives within the Clementon School District in New Jersey and his parents want him in a mainstream class with non-disabled students. • In the mainstream classroom within his district Rafael displayed behavioral issues so the school sent him 45 minutes from his home to be in a class for “multiply handicapped” children. • The school promised they would look into mainstreaming Rafael but at the end of the 1991-1992 school year his parents found they had done nothing of the sort. • The Oberti’s then filed a civil action lawsuit against the school with the U.S. district court in New Jersey. Who found the school in violation of IDEA.

4. Legal Action • The 1989 case of Daniel R.R. vs. State BOE stated that a two part test was needed to determine whether a school was in compliance with IDEA. • One “the court must determine if in a regular classroom with aids and services a child could learn satisfactorily” and two “if the court finds that placement outside of a regular classroom is necessary for the child to benefit educationally then the court must decide whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate,” (Oberti v. Board of Education, 1993).

5. Findings • Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed that the school was in violation of IDEA. • They said that the Clementon School District did not take the appropriate steps in trying to mainstream and include Rafael Oberti under the requirements of IDEA. • “The school district’s resolve that a child with Down’s syndrome would receive more benefit in a segregated special education classroom “is due no reference because school officials failed to consider what benefits he would receive from education in a regular classroom with appropriate supplemental aids and services” (Oberti v. Board of Education, 1993). • The failure of the school district to try and mainstream Rafael Oberti with aids and services put them under violation of IDEA.

6. Implications for these Parties • Rafael will now be allowed in a mainstream classroom with aid and other supplemental services and be able to be with students without disabilities. • Now the Clementon School District needs to change its policies in order to comply with IDEA regulations. • They will also have to adjust to meet Rafael Oberti’s needs.

7. Implications Special Education School districts must be sure to asses all students as individuals with unique needs. Special educators and parents must determine the least restrictive environment for each student, basing each program on what the individual student needs educationally, socially and emotionally. Placement cannot be based on what programs the district has available but on what program each student requires. Education must be student driven, not program driven. More school districts will be challenged and will be found out of compliance because of IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act. As economic time become more and more challenging and funding for educational programs meet further losses and cuts, districts will be forced to develop more creative methods of addressing the unique needs of each child as they attempt to accommodate the needs of each student.