Layna Crofts v. Issaquah School District
22 F.4th 1048
9th Cir.2022Background
- Parent requested IDEA evaluation after an outside evaluator (retired school psychologist) reported a pattern consistent with dyslexia; District conducted its own evaluation.
- District found A.S. eligible under the IDEA category "specific learning disability" (which statute lists dyslexia as an example), and adopted IEPs providing 40 then 60 minutes/day of targeted reading/writing instruction plus classroom accommodations.
- Parents sought: (1) that the District label and evaluate specifically for dyslexia, (2) use the Orton‑Gillingham multisensory method, and (3) funding for an independent educational evaluation (IEE); the District denied these requests.
- Administrative Law Judge credited district staff and teachers over the parents’ expert (who had not evaluated A.S. or met her teachers) and found the District’s evaluation and IEPs appropriate; the federal district court affirmed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: the District’s SLD evaluation was adequate, an IEE was not required at public expense, and the IEPs were reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress without adopting the parents’ preferred method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District had to evaluate specifically for "dyslexia" rather than the IDEA category "specific learning disability" | Crofts: District must evaluate for all suspected disabilities, including dyslexia; label/evaluation for dyslexia was required. | Issaquah: "Specific learning disability" encompasses dyslexia; District evaluated reading/writing/phonological processing, so no separate dyslexia label/eval was necessary. | Held: SLD evaluation sufficed; no IDEA violation for not using the label "dyslexia." |
| Whether District was required to use the parents' preferred Orton‑Gillingham method | Crofts: Orton‑Gillingham was necessary for A.S. to receive a FAPE. | Issaquah: District may choose evidence‑based methods; not obligated to adopt a parent's preferred methodology absent necessity. | Held: Not required to use Orton‑Gillingham; IEPs were reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress. |
| Whether District improperly denied parents' request for a publicly funded IEE | Crofts: Denial improper because District failed to properly evaluate for dyslexia. | Issaquah: District's evaluation was appropriate, so no basis to fund an IEE. | Held: Denial proper because the District’s evaluation was adequate. |
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted the parents' expert and whether procedural violations denied FAPE | Crofts: Expert testimony showed IEPs were inadequate and procedures deficient. | Issaquah: Expert lacked special‑ed credentials, did not evaluate A.S., and did not talk to teachers; District followed IDEA procedures. | Held: ALJ permissibly gave little weight to the expert; no procedural violation that denied FAPE. |
Key Cases Cited
- Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress in light of the child’s circumstances)
- Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (once IDEA requirements met, methodology questions are for educational authorities)
- Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (school must evaluate for suspected disabilities like autism when on notice)
- N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts may credit witnesses who observed the student over file‑review experts)
- Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified Sch. Dist., 822 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2016) (district must evaluate for suspected disabilities identified in records/observations)
- J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2010) (districts have discretion to choose instructional methods; not bound to parents’ preferred method)
- M.L. v. Federal Way Sch. Dist., 394 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2005) (IDEA requires both procedural and substantive compliance)