902 F. Supp. 2d 614
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- H.D., a learning-disabled student with ADHD, challenged the March 2010 IEP and denial of a publicly funded independent FBA under IDEA.
- The District revised IEPs repeatedly from April 2009 through March 2010, moving H.D. to itinerant emotional support at Linden due to behavioral needs.
- A Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) was conducted and incorporated into the IEPs; data showed persistent behavioral issues despite interventions.
- Parents opposed the Linden placement and sought independent evaluations at public expense; they also challenged the adequacy of the March 2010 IEP.
- The Hearing Officer ruled in the District’s favor on the IEP’s propriety and on denial of an independent FBA; the matter was appealed in federal court.
- The court affirmed, holding the March 2010 IEP provided a FAPE in the least restrictive environment and that parents’ participation was adequate; it also dismissed the Section 504 claim and compensated-education claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 2010 IEP offered a FAPE in the LRE. | H.D. argues March 2010 IEP was inadequate. | District contends March 2010 IEP reasonably calculated to provide meaningful benefits in LRE. | March 2010 IEP offered a FAPE in the LRE. |
| Whether parents were properly involved in IEP development. | Parents were not adequately involved in the March 2010 IEP. | Parents participated as collaborators in revisions. | No IDEA violation; parents adequately participated. |
| Whether H.D. was entitled to an independent FBA at public expense. | H.D. sought an independent FBA at public expense. | District’s FBA was appropriate. | District affordable FBA was sufficient; no public-funded independent FBA. |
| Whether the Rehabilitation Act claim of discrimination succeeds. | Section 504 discrimination alleged due to lack of FAPE and exclusion. | IDEA claim failure forecloses Section 504 claim. | Discrimination claim dismissed. |
| Whether evidence post-March 2010 (June 2010 IEP and thereafter) can affect the March 2010 IEP’s evaluation. | Later evidence should undermine March 2010 IEP validity. | Post-record evidence admissible only to assess reasonableness of March 2010 IEP at written time. | Post-March 2010 evidence considered only to appraise March 2010 IEP at the time written; March 2010 is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (sets the foundational FAPE framework and due weight standard)
- State-Operated Sch. Dist. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 336 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2003) (defines FAPE and LRE under IDEA; governs review standard)
- L.E. v. Ramsey Bd. of Educ., 435 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. 2006) (IEP must provide meaningful educational benefits; burden on challengers)
- Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 2000) (LRE and education within nondisabled peers; mainstreaming concept)
- Holmes v. Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2000) (IEP must provide meaningful benefits; not optimal services)