Anchorage School District v. M.P.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14791
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- M.P. has high-functioning autism with related developmental delays; parents actively advocate for his services under IDEA.
- ASD adopted a 2006 IEP for M.P. that expired in 2007, and attempts to revise it in 2007-08 failed.
- During 2008, M.P. attended Kincaid after no updated IEP was finalized; ASD relied on the outdated 2006 IEP.
- In September 2008, parents filed a due process complaint challenging that M.P. received no educational benefits under the 2006 IEP; an accompanying stay-put order was issued.
- A district court granted in part ASD’s summary judgment and then the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings on FAPE and related reimbursements.
- The Ninth Circuit held that the ASD deprived M.P. of a substantively adequate FAPE by relying on an outdated IEP and awarded reimbursement for private tutoring in 2008, with review for 2009; case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ASD violate IDEA by failing to update the IEP despite its duty to review annually? | M.P.'s parents contend ASD failed to revise the IEP and relied improperly on parental fault. | ASD argued opposition by parents justified delays in updating the IEP. | Yes; ASD’s take-it-or-leave-it approach violated IDEA and contributed to denial of FAPE. |
| Was M.P.'s 2006 IEP still reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits for 2007-08 or 2008? | Legacy 2006 IEP could not meet third-grade needs; updated IEP required. | The outdated IEP could be adequate with overlays and continued services. | Outdated 2006 IEP did not provide educational benefits; not reasonably calculated to achieve progress. |
| Should parents be reimbursed for private tutoring expenses due to denial of FAPE? | Parents entitled to reimbursement for tutoring during 2008; broader 2009 review to be determined. | Equitable relief not warranted if ASD denied FAPE. | Full reimbursement for 2008 tutoring; 2009 expenses to be reviewed by IEP team; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (establishes basic FAPE standard and educational benefit floor)
- Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (some educational benefit standard as baseline)
- W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, 960 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992) (schooling must involve meaningful parental participation)
- N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2008) (cannot abdicate affirmative IDEA duties to parents)
- J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2010) (educational benefit standard under Rowley applied to context)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (reimbursement standards for private placements consistent with IDEA)