844 F. Supp. 2d 23
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- T.W. is a sixteen-year-old student with an IEP for learning disability; he's at Ballou Senior High School in DC under DCPS placement for the 2010-2011 year.
- The MDT revised T.W.'s IEP in January 2010 to include 28.5 hours of specialized instruction and 1.5 hours of behavioral supports weekly, with a specified least-restrictive environment.
- The MDT chose Ballou over High Road Academy after the 2010 summer review, prompting a due process complaint by Savoy alleging Ballou could not implement the IEP.
- The Due Process Hearing (Oct 2010) featured testimony on Ballou’s ability to provide the services, schedules, and behavior supports for T.W.
- The Hearing Officer found Ballou’s provision of services and the ED program met the IEP, and that the District’s partial hour discrepancy did not constitute a material deviation.
- Plaintiff challenged the HOD as a failure to implement the IEP and raised procedural concerns about MDT composition, which the court ultimately concluded were not persuasive or properly raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ballou’s placement denied T.W. a FAPE | Savoy asserts Ballou failed to implement material parts of the IEP | DCPS provided the services and ED program required by the IEP | No; Ballou adequately implemented the IEP and provided educational benefit. |
| Whether Ballou’s class hours constitute a material deviation | Hours were 27.6 vs 30 prescribed by the IEP | Difference was not material; 97% of hours provided plus full behavioral services | No; missing minutes not a material deviation. |
| Whether Ballou is a sufficient public placement or the District was required to consider private placement | Private placement at High Road Academy should have been considered | No need to consider private placement where an appropriate public placement exists | No; Ballou suffices under the IEP. |
| Whether the MDT composition issue warrants remand | MDT lacked social worker present at July 2010 meeting | Issue not properly raised; no demonstrated prejudice | No remand; procedural issue not proven to affect substantive rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (set standard for educational benefit under IDEA)
- Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000) (material failure to implement requires more than de minimis deviation)
- Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007) (material failure to implement standard applied)
- Sumter County Sch. Dist. 17 v. Heffernan ex rel. T.H., 642 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2011) (missing hours can constitute material deviation depending on context)
- Catalan v. District of Columbia, 478 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2007) (courts may deem minor hour deviations non-material if overall benefits exist)
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (IDEA deferential to administrative decisions; nuanced review)
- Roark ex rel. Roark v. District of Columbia, 460 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2006) (exhaustion and procedural issues must be raised to remand)
- Leonard ex rel. Leonard v. McKenzie, 869 F.2d 1558 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (educational benefit standard recognizes some benefit needed)
- S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of the City of Newark, 336 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2003) (reiterates deference to hearing officer findings in IDEA review)