D.C. v. Klein Indep Sch Dist
20-20339
| 5th Cir. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- D.C., a K–5 student in Klein ISD, struggled with reading comprehension and fluency despite progressive interventions and Section 504 accommodations beginning in elementary school.
- By April–June 2017 teachers and 504 plans documented persistent, below-grade reading performance (including a 2nd-percentile MAP score), but Klein did not refer him for special-education evaluation until parents requested one in September 2017; evaluation completed January 2018 found a specific learning disability in reading comprehension.
- An ARD/IEP in March 2018 placed D.C. in general education with 3.75 hours/week co-teach reading and dyslexia services; it did not include Read 180 or other targeted reading-comprehension remediation.
- Parents requested a due-process hearing; the hearing officer found Klein violated child-find (trigger date April 27, 2017), that the IEP was not individualized or meaningfully beneficial, ordered Read 180 (or similar) instruction and 108 hours compensatory education.
- The federal district court affirmed the hearing officer; Klein appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held Klein unreasonably delayed evaluation, the IEP was inadequate (not individualized, lacked meaningful benefit), deemed the compensatory-education issue moot (award already provided), and upheld prevailing-party status for fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child-find delay (timing of referral/evaluation) | District had reason to suspect disability by Apr 27, 2017; delay until Oct 2017/Jan 2018 was unreasonable | Delay was reasonable (summer hiatus and procedural steps); trigger date later | Trigger Apr 27, 2017; delay (at least four months + inaction over summer) was unreasonable; child-find violation affirmed |
| IEP individualization (did IEP address reading-comprehension SLD) | IEP failed to provide specialized remediation for reading comprehension (no Read 180 or similar); dyslexia services unsupported | Co-teach and dyslexia services were adequate individualized supports; accommodations sufficient | IEP not sufficiently individualized—co-teach was primarily accommodative and district failed to include appropriate remediation |
| IEP demonstrated benefit (meaningful progress) | Post-IEP gains were minimal or unreliable (below-grade scores, marginal fluency gains, STAAR score improvement possibly due to added accommodations) | D.C. passed classes and showed some test improvement, indicating benefit | Improvements were not meaningfully beneficial under Endrew F.; court affirmed lack of demonstrated meaningful progress |
| Compensatory education & prevailing-party status | Hearing officer awarded 108 hours compensatory ed and ordered IEP modification; parents sought fees as prevailing party | District sought vacatur of compensatory award and argued prevailing-party status contested | Compensatory-education contest rendered moot (award already provided); vacatur would afford no effective relief. Regardless, D.C. is a prevailing party because the hearing officer ordered modification (Read 180 or similar), so attorneys' fees entitlement stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances)
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (definition of FAPE and individualized instruction premise)
- Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F. ex rel. Barry F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997) (four-factor Michael F. test for IEP adequacy)
- Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W. ex rel. Hannah W., 961 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2020) (child-find reasonableness inquiry and focus on steps taken between notice and referral)
- Krawietz ex rel. Parker v. Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist., 900 F.3d 673 (5th Cir. 2018) (child-find triggered by academic decline; delay unreasonable where no appreciable steps taken)
- Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody, 865 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2017) (examples of when shorter delays were reasonable given active steps taken)
- Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem, 690 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2012) (IEP need not maximize potential; accommodations vs. remediation distinction explained)
- Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000) (test-score and grade improvement may indicate meaningful benefit)
- Adam J. ex rel. Robert J. v. Keller Indep. Sch. Dist., 328 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2003) (district-court review of administrative IDEA decisions is virtually de novo)
- Lauren C. ex rel. Tracey K. v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 904 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2018) (prevailing-party test for IDEA attorneys’ fees)