be placed in the least restrictive environment that will provide the child with a “meaningful educational benefit.” T.R. v. Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572, 578 (3d Cir.2000). Additionally, in the Third Circuit, there is a presumption in favor of placing the child in the neighborhood school if possible. See Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204, 1224 n. 31 (3d Cir.1993). Nevertheless, the IDEA does not impose an absolute obligation to place a child in his or her neighborhood school; rather, the school district is required to take into account geographical proximity of placement. Barnett v. Fairfax Cnty L.Ed.2d 744 (1998); see also Urban v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist., 89 F.3d 720, 728 (10th Cir.1996); M.A. v. Voorhees Twp. Bd. of Educ., 202 F.Supp.2d 345, 363-64 (D.N.J.2002) (<HOLDING>), affd, 65 Fed.Appx. 404 (3d Cir.2003). If the
holding that a school district was not required to make dramatic changes to its program in order for a child to attend his neighborhood school holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea holding that once a state establishes a public school system and require s its children to attend public school officials may not take away a students legitimate entitlement to a public education without adhering to the minimum procedures required under due process holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials