J.D. Ex Rel. A.P. v. New York City Department of Education
677 F. App'x 709
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- A.P., a public elementary student with language-based learning disabilities, was a non-reader entering 6th grade after special-education services beginning in 3rd grade.
- A 2010 independent Evaluation recommended intensive, specialized reading instruction: 90-minute sessions 4–5 days/week in groups no larger than three.
- The 2010 IEP placed A.P. in a 12:1 special education class and provided 40-minute 1:1 speech/language therapy; A.P. made no reading progress and was placed at Sterling School (a private specialized school) at DOE expense, where small-group and 1:1 intensive instruction raised him to a mid‑first grade reading level.
- The 2011 CSE adopted an IEP for return to public school that largely mirrored the 2010 IEP but added SETSS: five 45-minute sessions/week in groups up to eight students; J.D. rejected the 2011 IEP and kept A.P. at Sterling at her expense.
- An IHO and an SRO found the 2011 IEP would have provided a FAPE; the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the administrative findings were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 IEP provided a FAPE under IDEA | The 2011 IEP was insufficiently intensive (shorter sessions, larger groups than Evaluation and Sterling) and therefore would not yield educational benefit | DOE contends Evaluation is not dispositive and shorter/larger-group SETSS could still be adequate; no requirement to obtain its own expert | Reversed: administrative findings not supported. DOE failed to show by preponderance that SETSS intensity/grouping in 2011 IEP was reasonably calculated to produce educational benefit |
| Whether the administrative determinations were adequately reasoned | IHO and SRO did not address the critical intensity question or reconcile A.P.’s progress at Sterling with the 2011 IEP | DOE points to IHO/SRO conclusions and witness testimony generally supporting the IEP | Held that IHO/SRO reasoning was inadequate: record lacks objective evidence or explanation that SETSS as proposed would have been sufficient |
| Burden of proof on adequacy of IEP | IEP must be shown appropriate by DOE | DOE argued deference to administrators and that Evaluation need not be dispositive | Court reiterated DOE bears burden; deference limited—court must independently assess whether preponderance supports administrative decision |
| Whether district court abdicated independent review by emphasizing unanimity of administrators | J.D. argued district court gave undue weight to unanimity | DOE relied on administrators’ agreement as support | Court found district court conducted independent review and met obligations, but nonetheless reversed on the merits due to insufficient administrative support |
Key Cases Cited
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (IDEA FAPE standard: IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (foundational standard for IDEA educational benefit requirement)
- M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (scope of appellate review and deference to administrative expertise)
- M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (DOE bears burden to show IEP appropriateness)
- L.O. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 822 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining review is more critical than clear-error but not fully de novo)
- Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (courts should look for objective evidence of likely progress under proposed plan)