900 F.3d 779
6th Cir.2018Background
- L.H., a student with Down Syndrome, attended Normal Park Elementary (HCDE) in mainstream classrooms with supports through 2nd grade; HCDE proposed moving him to a segregated Comprehensive Development Classroom (CDC) for 3rd grade over his parents’ objections.
- HCDE’s proposed Red Bank CDC placement used a different, non–state-standard curriculum (ULS), reduced academic time, had 9 students and 2 teachers, and provided limited real interaction with non-disabled peers.
- Parents rejected the CDC placement, enrolled L.H. at The Montessori School of Chattanooga (TMS), paid for a one-on-one aide, and claimed TMS provided mainstreaming and progress; HCDE disputed the extent of that progress.
- Administrative law judge ruled for HCDE; district court independently held the CDC placement violated the IDEA (LRE), but found TMS inappropriate and denied reimbursement to the parents.
- Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that HCDE’s CDC placement violated the IDEA, reversed the denial of reimbursement, and remanded to determine the amount of reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parents) | Defendant's Argument (HCDE) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether HCDE’s Red Bank CDC placement complied with the IDEA’s Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement | Segregated CDC was more restrictive than necessary; Normal Park mainstreaming provided at least some educational benefit and better LRE | CDC was justified because L.H. could not master grade-level curriculum and needed more restrictive setting | Court: CDC placement violated LRE; Normal Park provided some benefit so Roncker “no-benefit” exception did not apply (affirmed) |
| 2. Whether the State ALJ applied the correct standard to assess benefit (mastery vs. progress) | IEP/mainstreaming should be judged by whether child can make progress on IEP goals with supports, not mastery of general curriculum | HCDE and ALJ used a ‘‘mastery’’ standard (child must master grade-level curriculum) | Court: ALJ/HCDE applied wrong mastery standard; correct test is appropriate progress on individualized goals (district court’s rejection of ALJ upheld) |
| 3. Whether parents’ unilateral placement at TMS was an appropriate IDEA placement entitling them to reimbursement | TMS provided mainstreaming, individualized instruction, aide support, curriculum tied to state standards, homework and report cards — reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress | TMS’s Montessori method lacks sufficient systematic, structured instruction for L.H.’s building-block skill needs; thus inappropriate | Court: TMS satisfied IDEA for reimbursement purposes; district court erred in concluding otherwise (reversed) |
| 4. Remedy: entitlement and calculation of reimbursement | Having shown public violation and private appropriateness, parents are entitled to reimbursement for tuition and aide costs; court should determine amount on remand | HCDE argued stay-put could have been used; also disputed extent of progress and costs | Court: Parents entitled to reimbursement; remand to district court to determine appropriate amount (case remanded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress given the child’s circumstances)
- Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983) (LRE analysis; segregation permissible only when mainstreaming cannot be achieved satisfactorily)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) (burden of proof on party challenging IEP)
- Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (parents may obtain reimbursement for private placement if public school violated IDEA and private placement is appropriate)
- Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2003) (private placement must provide elements of special-education services lacking in public placement)
- McLaughlin v. Holt Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 320 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2003) (deference to school expertise on substantive educational methodology)
- Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004) (review standards and parental participation in IEP process)