Porter v. Illinois State Board of Education
6 N.E.3d 424
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Kecia Porter (pro se) challenged the special-education accommodations and IEP for her daughter K.P., who has ADHD and learning disabilities, seeking placement in a private therapeutic day school at public expense.
- Porter obtained a private UIC evaluation recommending one-on-one tutoring, assistive technology, extra time on tests, and multisensory instruction (Wilson Reading System).
- The Chicago Public Schools issued successive modified IEPs (Feb & May 2011); Porter rejected the May 2011 IEP and sought private placement. The District offered multisensory instruction either by transferring K.P. to a school already using Wilson or training current teachers.
- A due-process hearing before Hearing Officer Stacey Stutzman framed the sole issue as whether the District failed to place K.P. in the least restrictive environment (Porter sought private therapeutic placement only).
- Stutzman concluded the District did not predetermine placement, could provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in a less restrictive setting (K.P. would spend 75% of time with nondisabled peers), and private therapeutic placement was inappropriate.
- Porter sought certiorari review in circuit court (denied); appellate court reviewed the administrative decision on certiorari and confirmed the hearing officer’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predetermination of placement | Porter: District rejected private placement before the IEP meeting, so it predetermined placement | District: Responding to Porter’s claim was required; final placement is set by the IEP team | Held: No predetermination; District response was not an impermissible predecision |
| Adequacy of substantive FAPE / need for private therapeutic day school | Porter: IEP fails to address K.P.’s disabilities and 2–3 year deficits; private therapeutic placement and Wilson instruction required | District: IEP + offered multisensory/Wilson instruction (transfer or teacher training) could provide satisfactory education in less restrictive environment | Held: Hearing officer reasonably found District could provide FAPE in less restrictive setting; private placement not warranted |
| Standard and scope of review | Porter: Circuit court applied wrong law / due process standard | Board/District: Administrative decision reviewed under certiorari like administrative-review standards | Held: Appellate court reviews the administrative decision under traditional admin standards (mixed questions reviewed for clear error) |
| Appellate claims about circuit court conduct / due process | Porter: Circuit court abused discretion, made prejudicial/inflammatory comments | District: Record lacks transcript; appellant bears burden to supply record | Held: No reviewable error; incomplete record requires presumption of proper conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Sup. Ct.) (defining FAPE standard)
- In re D.D., 212 Ill. 2d 410 (Ill. 2004) (Illinois application of FAPE and district obligations)
- Outcom, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Transportation, 233 Ill. 2d 324 (Ill. 2009) (treatment of certiorari review like admin-review)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (Ill. 2008) (standard for mixed questions of fact and law; clearly erroneous review)
- James D. v. Board of Education of Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District No. 102, 642 F. Supp. 2d 804 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (private therapeutic placement inappropriate where student can receive satisfactory education spending a portion of day with typical peers)
- Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211 v. Ross, 486 F.3d 267 (7th Cir.) (discussing predetermination and IDEA placement procedures)