Endrew F. Ex Rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15020
10th Cir.2015Background
- Drew, a child with autism (and later ADHD), attended Douglas County public schools from preschool through fourth grade and received special-education services under IEPs.
- After a difficult fourth-grade year, Drew’s parents rejected the District’s proposed fifth-grade IEP, withdrew him, and enrolled him at Firefly, a private school for autistic children.
- Parents sought IDEA tuition reimbursement from the District, claiming the District failed to provide a FAPE; the ALJ and the federal district court both denied reimbursement, finding the District provided a FAPE.
- At administrative hearing, evidence showed some IEP progress, parental involvement, gaps in formal progress reporting, and escalating behavioral issues for Drew; the District had considered and was preparing new behavioral supports before parents withdrew him.
- The Tenth Circuit reviews the ALJ’s factual findings with deference under a modified de novo standard and applies the Rowley ‘‘some educational benefit’’ standard as interpreted in this circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District’s procedural failures (progress reporting) denied FAPE | Reporting was inadequate and deprived parents of meaningful participation | Parents were actively involved; available reports and informal communications sufficed | No procedural denial; gaps did not deny FAPE |
| Whether failure to conduct FBA/BIP denied FAPE | District failed to assess behavior and implement adequate BIP as required | IDEA requires only that behavior be "considered" unless disciplinary change in placement occurs; District considered interventions and sought specialists | No procedural violation amounting to denial of FAPE |
| Whether the rejected 5th-grade IEP was substantively adequate | Rejected IEP was similar to prior IEPs that produced little or de minimis progress; behavioral issues not addressed | Past progress and planned behavioral interventions show IEP was reasonably calculated to confer some benefit | IEP was substantively adequate under Tenth Circuit "some educational benefit" standard |
| Whether Tenth Circuit standard for FAPE is "meaningful" vs "some" educational benefit | Parents argued Jefferson County adopted a heightened "meaningful" standard | Court held Jefferson County did not overturn Thompson; Tenth Circuit remains bound to "some educational benefit" (more than de minimis) | Court reaffirms "some educational benefit" standard; Jefferson County did not change it |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer some educational benefit)
- Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (parents may seek reimbursement when public placement fails to provide a FAPE)
- Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (parents can obtain reimbursement for unilateral private placement if public school failed to offer FAPE)
- Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Elizabeth E., 702 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2012) (discusses private residential placements and circuit approaches; did not change Tenth Circuit’s Rowley-based standard)
- Thompson R2‑J Sch. Dist. v. Luke P., 540 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2008) (Tenth Circuit applies "some educational benefit" standard)
- O’Toole ex rel. O’Toole v. Olathe Dist. Schs., 144 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1998) (procedural/substantive two-step IDEA analysis)
- Systema ex rel. Systema v. Acad. Sch. Dist. No. 20, 538 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2008) (procedural failures amount to substantive denial only when they effectively deny a FAPE)
- Alex R. ex rel. Beth R. v. Forrestville Valley Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. #221, 375 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2004) (IEP must address both academic and behavioral needs)