Ms. M. v. Falmouth School Department
847 F.3d 19
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- O.M., a student with Down syndrome and ADHD, attended Falmouth Elementary; her mother (Ms. M.) challenged the school's literacy instruction in O.M.'s 3rd-grade year (2013–2014) as not providing a FAPE under the IDEA.
- At an October 31, 2013 IEP-team meeting the school "proposed" using the SPIRE structured reading program and issued a Written Prior Notice saying it proposed sixty minutes daily of SPIRE.
- The finalized IEP sent in November 2013 did not mention SPIRE and instead stated O.M. would receive "Specially Designed Instruction" in literacy & math (8 hrs 45 mins/week).
- Ms. M. objected to SPIRE in writing, filed (then dismissed) an earlier due process request, later obtained private LiPS tutoring, and filed a new due process request arguing the school failed to implement SPIRE as part of the IEP.
- Administrative officer and magistrate judge treated the Written Prior Notice as incorporated into the IEP; district court adopted that view and awarded Ms. M. reimbursement for private tutoring. The First Circuit reversed, holding SPIRE was not required by the IEP and vacating the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPIRE was part of O.M.'s IEP | Ms. M.: Written Prior Notice proposing SPIRE should be read into the IEP | Falmouth: SPIRE appeared only in a proposal (Written Prior Notice), not in the final IEP document | SPIRE was not part of the IEP; IEP’s general "Specially Designed Instruction" did not mandate SPIRE |
| Whether defendant waived challenge by not objecting to magistrate judge | Ms. M.: Falmouth waived challenge by failing to object to magistrate recommendation | Falmouth: District court considered the issue; no forfeiture on appeal | No waiver; Falmouth fairly raised the argument and may appeal it |
| Whether "Specially Designed Instruction" is ambiguous so extrinsic evidence can be used to add methodology | Ms. M.: Term ambiguous and extrinsic evidence (prior proposals) can show SPIRE requirement | Falmouth: Term is a general service category; specific methods need not be listed in IEP | Term is not ambiguous here; statutory/regulatory scheme shows methods need not be specified; no resort to extrinsic evidence required |
| Whether failure to provide SPIRE violated IDEA / denied FAPE | Ms. M.: Failure to provide SPIRE was a material IEP violation denying FAPE | Falmouth: No IEP requirement for SPIRE, so no breach or denial of FAPE | No IDEA violation; school complied with the IEP as written; reimbursement vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (IEP is the primary vehicle for delivering a FAPE)
- Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IEP must be individually designed to confer educational benefit)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (courts may defer to agency interpretations of its own regulations)
- School Union No. 37 v. United National Insurance Co., 617 F.3d 554 (1st Cir.) (waiver/forfeiture analysis where party failed to object to magistrate recommendations)