950 F. Supp. 2d 186
D.D.C.2013Background
- TA was a seventeen-year-old with an emotional disturbance eligible for IDEA services and an IEP revised in Feb 2011.
- Shadd transitioned to Ballou Senior High School building at end of 2010-2011; the move did not involve T.A.’s removal from program, just relocation.
- Ms. Aikens received notice that Shadd was closing but disputes whether she was informed that Shadd’s program would move to BAT.
- Ms. Aikens enrolled TA at High Road in Aug 2011, prompting a DCPS reimbursement dispute; DCPS said BAT could provide a FAPE.
- HOD found no change in placement, concluding no procedural safeguards were required; plaintiffs challenged the HOD in district court.
- Court reviews the administrative record and grants DC’s summary judgment, finding no denial of FAPE and no change in placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did TA’s move from Shadd to BAT constitute a change in educational placement? | Aikens argued substantial differences altered placement. | DCPS contends the move did not change the educational program. | No change in placement; program remained substantially similar. |
| If there was a change, did DCPS's failure to notify/involve violate IDEA? | Aikens claims lack of prior written notice and parental involvement violated IDEA. | Because there was no change in placement, notice was not required. | Procedural safeguards not triggered; no violation found. |
| Is the parent entitled to tuition reimbursement for TA’s High Road placement? | If FAPE was denied, reimbursement for private placement could be warranted. | If a FAPE was available, reimbursement is not required. | Not entitled to reimbursement; no denial of FAPE. |
Key Cases Cited
- Concerned Parents v. New York City Board of Education, 629 F.2d 751 (2d Cir. 1980) (educational placement refers to program, not bricks-and-mortar)
- White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2003) (educational placement is about the program, not location)
- T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009) (placement focuses on services and program elements)
- Lunceford v. District of Columbia Board of Education, 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (requires identification of fundamental change in education program)
- Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Supreme Court 1982) (FAPE does not guarantee a specific outcome)
- Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (deference to hearing officer’s determinations; burden on challengers)
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (perspective on procedural safeguards under IDEA)