Davis v. District of Columbia
244 F. Supp. 3d 27
D.D.C.2017Background
- N.D., born 2004, received special-education services (including for a Specific Learning Disability and ADHD) from early elementary years through third grade and had repeated early developmental delays and a history of psychiatric treatment.
- May 2013 IEP (prepared at Eagle Academy) provided ~10 hours/week of specialized instruction, speech and behavioral supports; N.D. moved to KIPP for fourth grade and KIPP revised the IEP in Nov. 2013 reducing specialized instruction to 7.5 hours/week and cutting behavioral support and some therapy minutes.
- In spring 2014 KIPP/DCPS reevaluated N.D., administered district testing, and concluded she no longer met DCPS criteria for an SLD and did not have a speech-language impairment; KIPP exited her from special education.
- Parent Louise Davis procured independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in late 2014 that diagnosed SLDs in multiple areas, suggested occupational-therapy testing (visual-motor integration) and an auditory-processing assessment; DCPS reviewed but declined to perform the recommended additional testing.
- Administrative hearing officer upheld KIPP/DCPS (found Revised 2013 IEP appropriate, affirmed exit from special education, and denied further testing); Davis sued under IDEA. District court reviewed and (1) affirmed IEP appropriateness, (2) vacated the HOD’s SLD ineligibility determination and remanded to reassess eligibility under proper standards, and (3) ordered DCPS to provide or fund auditory-processing and occupational-therapy evaluations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of Nov. 2013 revised IEP (service reductions) | Davis: reductions (10→7.5 hrs/week; behavioral minutes cut) were precipitous and not supported by data; speech goals inadequate | KIPP/DCPS: revisions were reasonable based on classroom observations, grades, and testing showing progress | Court: IEP was reasonably calculated to provide benefit; affirmed HOD on IEP appropriateness |
| 2014 exit from special education — SLD eligibility standard | Davis: DC regs define SLD by processing disorder and eligibility should not be foreclosed by lack of a severe IQ–achievement discrepancy alone | DCPS/KIPP: applied DCPS discrepancy model (two-year / two SD gap) and, lacking such a gap, properly exited N.D. | Court: HOD erred by relying solely on discrepancy; record unclear on which DCPS standard applied; vacated HOD as to SLD ineligibility and remanded for application of standards consistent with federal and local law |
| Speech-language impairment (continuing eligibility) | Davis: IEE showed language impairment and possible auditory-processing issues affecting access | DCPS: district SLI review found no disabling communication disorder impacting access to general curriculum | Court: plaintiff failed to show SLI adversely impacted educational performance; HOD affirmed on SLI issue |
| Failure to evaluate for auditory-processing disorder and visual-motor deficits (occupational therapy) after IEEs | Davis: IEEs gave specific recommendations; DCPS had notice and should have performed targeted evaluations | DCPS/KIPP: classroom data showed no concerns and district reviews deemed further testing unnecessary | Court: DCPS had sufficient notice from IEEs and parental requests; its review was too cursory and it should have conducted the recommended assessments; ordered evaluations or funding thereof |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (IDEA guarantees an education providing meaningful educational benefit)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (burden of proof in IDEA proceedings)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. standard on reviewing hearing officer findings and deference)
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. deference to hearing officers in IDEA cases)
- District of Columbia v. Doe, 611 F.3d 888 (reduced deference to hearing decisions lacking reasoned findings)
- Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (scope of court’s remedial authority under IDEA)
- Michael P. v. Dep’t of Educ., 656 F.3d 1057 (discussion of discrepancy models and SLD identification)
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances)