M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, 685 F.3d 217

Background

These consolidated appeals challenge the district court’s IDEA review of state administrative decisions regarding two autistic children, P.H. and D.S., in New York City.
IEPs must be designed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and be implemented through individualized education programs; courts review for whether procedures were followed and whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits.
In P.H.’s case, the CSE recommended a 6:1:1 special-education class with reduced related services; parents private-tutored at BAC with ABA 1:1 and sought reimbursement.
In D.S.’s case, the CSE proposed a 6:1:1 classroom in District 75 with reduced related services and photocopied goals; parents privately placed at BAC seeking reimbursement.
The district court largely accepted the IHO’s determinations, but required deference to state administrative findings depending on their thoroughness and the context of educational methodology.
The court ultimately affirmed the lower court rulings, finding procedural and substantive deficiencies in the IEPs and awarding tuition reimbursement where appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for IDEA administrative decisions	Plaintiffs argue for greater de novo review of IEPs and less deference to SRO/IHO findings.	DOE contends for substantial deference to administrative determinations of methodology and adequacy.	Two-level independent review with due weight to administrative findings; not full de novo, but not blind deference.
Procedural compliance of IEPs	IEPs were procedurally flawed (goals not individualized, lack of FBA, and decisions driven by other factors).	Procedural defects did not deny a FAPE where other elements addressed progress and benefits.	IEPs were procedurally deficient in several respects; some findings denied FAPE.
Appropriateness of the suggested methodology	Evidence showed ABA is essential and must be the primary methodology for P.H. and D.S.	Districts may employ multiple methodologies; selection is within educational discretion.	Administrative findings on methodology require substantial support; district court erred by underweighting plaintiff evidence on ABA.
Unilateral private placement and reimbursement	BAC was the appropriate private placement providing necessary ABA and progress.	Private placement must meaningfully meet the child’s unique needs and be reasonably calculated to provide benefit; district could argue BAC was not appropriate.	BAC placement may be appropriate; reimbursement depends on whether it meets the child’s needs and is reasonably calculated to provide benefits.
Measurability and evaluative criteria of goals	IEP goals lacked measurable evaluative criteria and proper schedules.	Most goals were adequate or could be measured through teacher observation and existing procedures.	IEPs failed to provide sufficient evaluative criteria for many goals; measurability defects undermined the adequacy of the IEPs.

Key Cases Cited

Rowley v. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (establishes basic floor of opportunity and deference to state education policy)
Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (deference to state decisions in substantive adequacy cases; two-level review)
Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (deference and thoroughness in administrative decisions; methodology considerations)
Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (two-level review; deference to IHO/SRO findings when reasoned and supported)
T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2009) (unilateral placement standards; burden on parents to show appropriateness)
Deal ex rel. Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004) (participation and perception of district decisionmaking in IEP processes)
Carter v. Florence County Sch. Dist. 4, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (equitable considerations in private school reimbursement under Carter)