The basic point of contention in this case was the inclusion of a young child who had Downs syndrome and a speech impairment in a regular kindergarten class. Daniel's parents had requested that he be able to attend a program that consisted of a 1/2 day kindergarten (regular program) and 1/2 day special education class. Prior to the request, Daniel had been attending a district-operated preschool program. At his annual review of placement, the district team recommended that Daniel be placed in a special education program with access to age peers during lunch and recess. The team found that Daniel was failing to master basic skills, required constant attention to make educational progress, and that 90% or more of his curriculum needed to be modified in order for him to gain academic content in his current placement. According to the multidisciplinary team, this was not Daniel's least restrictive environment. The parents challenged this placement recommendation claiming that he was being deined his due process rights.

Initially, the federal District court found in favor of the school. The parents appealed the decision to the Appellate court affirmed the earlier decision finding:

• Daniel required such constant supervision that his regular classroom teacher was functioning as if she were a special education teacher
• that the curricular modifications were so extensive that the curriculum was "unrecognizable" as a pre-kindergarten curriculum.
• further, the Court found that the EHA allows schools to remove a child from the regular classroom setting if they are not able to satisfactorally progress in that environment.

The findings of the Daniel R.R. case added significant information for school district teams to consider in determining what constitutes a "least restrictive environment"