977 F. Supp. 2d 1091
N.D. Ala.2013Background
- This is a cross-appeal under the IDEA and Alabama Exceptional Child Education Act, challenging two issues: the Appropriate Education issue and the Independent Educational Evaluation issue.
- Lolita S. seeks reimbursement for an IEE and challenges the district’s provision of FAPE to M.S.; the Jefferson County Board of Education challenges the IEE reimbursement and aspects of the IEPs.
- The hearing officer ruled in part for Lolita S. on IEE reimbursement and reversed/remanded reading and transition areas, while affirming other aspects of the Appropriate Education decision; the Board sought appellate review.
- M.S. was a 16–17-year-old student with disabilities whose IEPs (2010–2011, 2011–2012) and the Ackerson IEE were central to disputed evaluations, services, and transition planning.
- The court conducted a de novo review of the administrative record, considering the IDEA’s standards for FAPE, and addressed Child Find, evaluation adequacy, transition services, and reimbursable IEE costs.
- Key authorities were cited regarding the appropriate standard of review and educational-benefit requirements (Rowley, Draper, Phillip C., Bennett, Loren F.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IEPs’ reading and transition services provided a FAPE | Lolita S. asserts the reading goals were unrealistic and the IEP lacked a bridging reading program addressing M.S.’s needs. | Board contends the IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and complied with IDEA. | Reading and transition areas not reasonably calculated; remand ordered. |
| Whether the district complied with Child Find and timely evaluation | Lolita S. argues district failed to identify and evaluate M.S. earlier. | Board contends no Child Find violation occurred and evaluation was adequate. | Child Find no violation; evaluation adequate as of the time of formulation; no retroactive finding. |
| Whether the Stanford/transition-focused IEPs violated IDEA's transition requirements | Lolita S. argues transition assessments and services were not individualized or adequate. | Board argues transition services were appropriate and reasonably prepared M.S. for post-high school life. | Transition services not appropriate; remand to address deficient transition assessment and goals. |
| Whether Lolita S. is entitled to reimbursement for Dr. Ackerson’s IEE | Lolita S. seeks public funding for Ackerson’s IEE. | Board asserts Ackerson’s IEE was not an IEE or that reimbursement is inappropriate. | Ackerson’s IEE qualifies; Board ordered to reimburse; alternative ruling that IEE met agency criteria also discussed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit)
- Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008) (ADEQUATE education is case-by-case; not every outcome guaranteed)
- Phillip C. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 701 F.3d 691 (11th Cir. 2012) (Regulation valid; boards must file to challenge parent IEE requests)
- Loren F. ex rel. Fisher v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 349 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (Deference to administrative findings; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Bennett v. Sch. Dist. of City of Birmingham, 203 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2000) (Case-by-case adequacy; child’s IEP must provide basic floor of educational opportunity)