919 F.3d 237
4th Cir.2019Background
- R.F. is a young student with severe autism and a rare genetic disorder who communicates nonverbally and exhibits aggressive, disruptive behaviors and mobility limitations.
- CCPS developed IEPs for R.F.; the May 2016 IEP included a BIP focused on biting and allocated specific weekly hours inside/outside general education, anticipating placement in an Intensive Communication Support Classroom (ICSC).
- At the start of 2016–2017, R.F. was the only student in the ICSC; her teacher (Mr. K.) gradually increased her ICSC hours in response to difficulty accessing the general education classroom.
- CCPS revised the IEP in December 2016 to increase time outside general education; R.F.’s parents opposed inclusion and sought private placement at the Benedictine School.
- Parents filed for due process; an ALJ found some procedural IDEA violations (changing placement without notice; teacher destroyed raw data contrary to district policy) but concluded R.F. nonetheless received a FAPE. District court affirmed; Fourth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) | R.F. was placed mainly alone in the ICSC, violating LRE and warranting private placement among peers with disabilities | ICSC placement, with daily peer interactions (specials, recess, walks) and supports, was appropriate given R.F.’s needs | Court held placement in ICSC was appropriate and did not violate LRE; interaction with nondisabled peers was provided to the maximum extent appropriate |
| Failure to implement IEP / unilateral placement change | Mr. K. increased ICSC hours without parental notice or IEP revision, breaching procedural requirements and the IEP | CCPS admits procedural error but argues increased ICSC time was responsive to R.F.’s needs and produced educational benefit | Court found a procedural violation but concluded it did not deny a FAPE because the unilateral change was reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress |
| Parental participation / records destruction | Parents were impeded from meaningful participation when CCPS changed placement without notice and when Mr. K. destroyed raw data | CCPS: parents had access to quarterly reports summarizing progress and later participated in the December 2016 IEP meeting | Court held parents’ opportunity to participate was not significantly impeded; data destruction violated district policy but did not rise to IDEA denial of FAPE |
| Substantive adequacy of IEP (BIP, social goals, hours) | IEP/BIP focused only on biting, omitted social-skills goal, and had insufficient special-education hours | CCPS: BIP targeted primary behavior and could generalize; socialization opportunities existed; hours were calculated differently and were adequate when judged prospectively | Court held the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress under Endrew F.; no substantive FAPE denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances)
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (procedural and substantive IDEA framework; courts should not substitute their educational policy judgments)
- T.B., Jr. ex rel. T.B., Sr. v. Prince George’s Cty. Bd. of Educ., 897 F.3d 566 (procedural violation may not amount to denial of FAPE if child still makes appropriate progress)