One of the foundational principles of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is that special education decisions, especially placement decisions, must be grounded in objective data, not just professional opinion. Yet, in some IEP (Individualized Education Program) meetings, teams may lean heavily on “professional judgment” without presenting the concrete evaluations or documented evidence required by law.
In this blog, we’ll break down what IDEA says about this issue, why data must drive placement, and how case law reinforces the rights of students and families when professional opinion overshadows due process.
The Law: IDEA's Requirements on Placement
IDEA mandates that IEP placement decisions must:
Be based on evaluation data and the child’s individual needs (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d))
Be determined by a team of qualified professionals and the child’s parents (34 C.F.R. § 300.321)
Occur in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) possible (34 C.F.R. § 300.114)
Be reviewed annually and revised as appropriate based on updated data (34 C.F.R. § 300.324)
Placement cannot be decided solely based on:
Category of disability
Severity of disability
Availability of services
Administrative convenience
A single professional’s opinion without supporting data
Why "Professional Opinion" Can Be Problematic
While professional expertise is a valued part of the IEP process, it cannot replace data. Statements like “In our experience, students like this do better in self-contained settings” or “We just know this is best for them” do not satisfy legal standards for placement decisions.
Such reasoning risks:
Violating the child’s right to an individualized program
Ignoring progress monitoring, assessments, or classroom data
Leading to placements in more restrictive settings than necessary
Supporting Case Law
1. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017)
The Supreme Court emphasized that IEPs must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Decisions must be based on data-informed expectations, not generalizations or intuition.
2. Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989)
This 5th Circuit case established a two-part test to determine compliance with LRE mandates. It cautioned against removing students from general education without documented efforts to support them first.
3. Oberti v. Board of Education (1993)
The 3rd Circuit found that “inclusion is a right, not a privilege.” Schools must provide supplementary aids and services before considering more restrictive placements, and they must show data to support the need for removal.
4. K.D. v. Department of Education, Hawaii (2011)
The 9th Circuit emphasized that data collected from assessments, observations, and academic performance must be the foundation of placement decisions. Subjective impressions without supporting data are not sufficient.
Best Practices: What Parents and Teams Should Do
Ask for data behind any placement recommendation.
Insist on reviewing progress reports, evaluations, and behavioral data.
Request a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) or updated evaluations if needed.
Consider involving an advocate or attorney if you feel professional opinion is being used inappropriately.
Final Thoughts
"Professional opinion" has a place in the IEP process, but only when it complements, not replaces, concrete data. Families have the right to challenge placements that aren’t supported by the student’s evaluations and progress. By understanding what IDEA and case law require, parents and advocates can ensure students receive the placements they truly need, not just what the system is used to offering.