Forest Grove School District v. Student, 665 F. App'x 612

Student appealed a district court order that partially reversed an ALJ decision about special education services provided by Forest Grove School District under the IDEA.
The record excerpts are sealed; the panel reviewed the record and legal issues without repeating sealed facts.
The Ninth Circuit reviews factual findings for clear error and program appropriateness de novo.
The district court gave the ALJ’s decision little deference because the ALJ’s opinion relied heavily on block quotes, lacked detailed witness/expert analysis, and failed to consider the record as a whole.
Student claimed both procedural and substantive IDEA violations: failures to provide prior written notice, reevaluate mental health, conduct age-appropriate transition assessments, issue progress reports, and inappropriate class placement.
The Ninth Circuit concluded the School District neither committed prejudicial procedural errors nor failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE); the IEPs and placements were adequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deference to ALJ	ALJ decision should be afforded deference	ALJ opinion is not thorough and deserves little deference	Court agreed with district court: ALJ entitled to little deference due to inadequate analysis
Procedural violations (notice, reevaluation, progress reports)	Failures deprived Student/parents of participation or educational opportunity	Any procedural lapses were not prejudicial; parents participated and District adjusted services	Held: Procedural errors, if any, did not cause harm or deny FAPE
Substantive adequacy of IEPs (addressing anxiety, progress measures)	IEPs and services failed to produce progress; teaching methods and services insufficient	IEPs contained measurable goals, addressed anxiety, and provided adequate support	Held: IEPs provided the required basic floor of opportunity; no denial of FAPE
Transition assessments and class placement	Transition plans lacked age-appropriate assessments; placement didn’t match parents’ preferred methods	Transition plans were sufficiently focused and timely; placement balanced student needs, peers, and costs	Held: Any assessment shortcomings did not deny FAPE; placement appropriate under IDEA standards

Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1987) (standard for reviewing adequacy of education program and scope of required benefit)
N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist. ex rel. Bd. of Dirs., 541 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2008) (IDEA funding conditioned on compliance with procedural and substantive goals)
Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9th Cir. 1994) (when ALJ opinions merit deference)
L.M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 556 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural harm requires loss of educational opportunity or infringement on parental participation)
Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (procedural then substantive inquiry; IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg ex rel. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 1995) (criteria for FAPE: address unique needs, provide supports, conform to IEP)
K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Dep’t of Educ., 665 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (parental participation and weighing evidence in placement decisions)
J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for procedural adequacy and participation)
Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rachel H. ex rel. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994) (balancing student needs, peer effects, and district costs in placement decisions)