O.S. Ex Rel. Michael S. v. Fairfax County School Board
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18050
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Student O.S., diagnosed with Doose syndrome and other health impairments, received IEPs in Fairfax County for K–1 and proposed IEP for 2nd grade; parents rejected the 2nd-grade IEP and sought a due process hearing.
- IEPs provided a mix of services (speech, occupational therapy, adapted PE, special‑education classroom time); attendance was poor (30+ full days missed).
- Hearing officer held a three-day administrative hearing, credited School Board witnesses and progress reports, found the IEPs properly developed and implemented, and concluded the School Board provided a FAPE.
- District court affirmed, giving deference to the hearing officer’s factual findings; O.S. appealed.
- Central legal dispute: whether Congress’s amendments to IDEA raised the FAPE standard from Rowley’s “some educational benefit” to a heightened “meaningful” (results‑oriented) standard, and whether O.S. received a FAPE under the applicable standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA’s post-Rowley amendments raised the FAPE standard from “some educational benefit” to a heightened “meaningful” (results-focused) standard | Congress’s 1997/2004 amendments and findings show intent to require meaningful (not minimal) progress/results | Congress did not expressly change Rowley; amendments implemented higher expectations through specific provisions, not by altering FAPE’s judicially-set meaning | The court held Rowley’s standard remains: FAPE requires some educational benefit (more than minimal/trivial), i.e., no statutory abrogation of Rowley |
| Whether the School Board provided a FAPE for K–1 (implementation/progress) | O.S. contends evaluation scores show regression and insufficient progress under his IEPs | School Board presented IEP progress reports and testimony from multiple educators that O.S. made measurable progress; absences explained intermittent regression | Court upheld that the record supports the hearing officer’s findings and that O.S. received some educational benefit; FAPE provided |
| Whether additional accommodations (one-on-one aide, full-time nurse, extended school year) were required | Parents argued these supports were necessary for safety and progress | School Board and experts testified such services were unnecessary given protocols, staff support, and absence of significant regression | Hearing officer credited testimony; court affirmed no entitlement to those additional services |
| Remedy: entitlement to compensatory education | O.S. sought compensatory education for alleged prior deprivation | School Board argued no failure to provide educational benefit occurred | Court denied compensatory education because School Board provided the required educational benefit |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Sup. Ct.) (defines FAPE as access producing some educational benefit, not maximizing potential)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (Sup. Ct.) (burden of proof in IDEA cases lies with the party seeking relief)
- M.S. ex rel. Simchick v. Fairfax Cty. Sch. Bd., 553 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2009) (describing modified de novo review and due weight to administrative findings)
- E.L. ex rel. Lorsson v. Chapel Hill–Carrboro Bd. of Educ., 773 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 2014) (applying Rowley’s “some educational benefit” standard)
- A.B. ex rel. D.B. v. Lawson, 354 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2004) (courts should not substitute educational policy judgments for local educators)
- J.H. ex rel. J.D. v. Henrico Cty. Sch. Bd., 395 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2005) (IDEA standard described as some educational benefit)
- Hall ex rel. Hall v. Vance Cty. Bd. of Educ., 774 F.2d 629 (4th Cir. 1985) (rejecting view that “some” benefit means merely trivial advancement)
- G. ex rel. R.G. v. Fort Bragg Dependent Schs., 343 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2003) (characterizing FAPE benefit as meaningful while citing Rowley)