Madeline v. Anchorage School District
265 P.3d 308
Alaska2011Background
- Manuel, a student with disabilities, qualified for special education under IDEA in ASD.
- Manuel’s IEP in Fall 2006 provided 27.5 hours weekly of services, including writing instruction in general ed.
- During Williams’s family leave (Nov 2006), Manuel’s writing instruction temporarily moved to a resource room without prior written notice.
- Manuel’s parents attended meetings and objected to the change but the team continued the temporary arrangement.
- Upon Williams’s return, the IEP was amended in January 2007 to allow writing instruction in either general ed or resource room; parents did not agree with the amendment.
- A June–November 2007 due process hearing found a single IDEA procedural issue (failure to provide prior written notice) occurred only during the Williams absence, and awarded 15 hours of compensatory writing instruction; the superior court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether temporary relocation of writing instruction without prior written notice violated IDEA. | Manuel’s parents allege lack of PWN breached IDEA. | ASD argues no material loss of opportunity occurred; PWN not required for temporary measures. | No procedural violation; no loss of educational opportunity; stay-participation preserved. |
| Whether January 2007 IEP amendment and PWN timing violated IDEA. | Amendment occurred without proper timely PWN. | Parents had notice and opportunity to participate; no resulting educational harm. | Not a procedural violation; no loss of educational opportunity established. |
| Whether ASD’s practice of issuing PWN after changes violated IDEA. | Such post-change PWN undermines safeguards. | Issue not properly raised in due process; otherwise illogical. | Not properly raised; not decided on the merits. |
| Whether the compensatory education award was properly limited to the period of noncompliance. | Manuel deserved full 78 hours for the duration of resource-room writing. | Only six-week period after Williams’s return constitutes denial of FAPE. | Affirmed 15 hours, limited to six-week period after Williams’s return. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (de novo review for IDEA FAPE questions in mixed questions of law and fact)
- Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist. v. Napa Valley, 496 F.3d 932, 496 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007) (deference to administrative findings; mixed question standard)
- Park ex rel. Park v. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist., 464 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2006) (thorough and careful findings warrant deference in IDEA appeals)
- Bickford v. State, Dep’t of Educ. & Early Dev., 155 P.3d 302 (Alaska 2007) (modified de novo standard in Alaska IDEA proceedings)
- Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993) (conceptual framework for FAPE and IEP compliance)