962 F. Supp. 2d 227
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to compel the District of Columbia to maintain D.K.’s placement at the McLean School of Maryland under IDEA’s stay-put provision.
- The 2007 and 2012 IEPs designate D.K.’s placement as outside the general education setting, and require specialized instruction and related services outside general education.
- McLean lacks a valid Certificate of Approval and cannot implement D.K.’s IEP, according to DC regulations and staff testimony.
- The District proposed transferring D.K. to Kingsbury Day School, which can implement the IEP and holds a Certificate of Approval, but Plaintiffs rejected it.
- A December 2012 Hearing Officer found no denial of FAPE, dismissed the administrative complaint, and held that moving to Kingsbury was not a change in educational placement under IDEA.
- The District later indicated it would discontinue funding D.K.’s attendance at McLean, prompting Plaintiffs to file this suit seeking to preserve McLean placement pending merits decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does transfer from McLean to Kingsbury change educational placement? | Klein: transfer is a fundamental change in educational program. | District: no substantial change in services set forth in IEP; placement location is not the program. | No; transfer is not a change in educational placement. |
| Is stay-put available when the current placement cannot implement the IEP? | McLean cannot implement D.K.’s IEP; stay-put should preserve current placement until a viable option is found. | Stay-put not triggered if a comparable program is available and can implement the IEP. | Stay-put does not apply because McLean cannot implement the IEP and Kingsbury is available. |
| Is Kingsbury a proper available placement under IDEA? | Kingsbury provides an appropriate program compatible with the IEP via smaller classes and supports. | Kingsbury is an available program that can implement the IEP and holds a Certificate of Approval. | Kingsbury is an available placement capable of implementing the IEP. |
| Can McLean be maintained as a placement given lack of a Certificate of Approval? | McLean should remain since it is the current placement and provides services; lack of COA is contested. | McLean cannot be the placement because it lacks approval and cannot implement the IEP. | McLean is not available as a placement due to lack of COA and inability to implement the IEP. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunceford v. District of Columbia Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (stay-put requires no change in basic education placement)
- Knight v. District of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (stay-put duty to keep in current placement or similar program)
- Johnson v. District of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2012) (cannot place student where EIP cannot be implemented)
- White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2003) (educational placement focuses on program, not bricks-and-mortar)