Sebastian M. v. King Philip Regional School District, 774 F. Supp. 2d 393

Sebastian M. has developmental delays and multiple deficits; eligible for special education since age three and received therapies prior to entering public school.
From 1998-2001, placement moved to BICO Work Lab I, then Work Lab II through 2005, with exploratory and community-based vocational activities.
Between 2002-2005, annual IEPs proposed substantially separate programs including speech, OT, vocational, and social/emotional supports; progress reports showed steady progress.
In 2005-06 to 2006-07, new IEPs increased vocational and independent-living goals; parents repeatedly rejected IEPs in full, delaying implementation.
In 2006-07 to 2007-08, independent evaluations questioned program coordination; Cardinal Cushing residential placement occurred after private placement, followed by a DESE/BSEA proceeding.
Hearing Officer found the 2006-2008 IEPs reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment; Cardinal Cushing not deemed appropriate LRE; compensatory services limited to updated evaluations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2006-2008 IEPs provided FAPE in LRE	IEPs were inadequate and not reasonably calculated for Sebastian's needs.	IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE in LRE and supported progress.	IEPs provided a FAPE in LRE.
Whether transition planning required a stand-alone plan in the IEP	IEPs lacked a stand-alone transition plan for Sebastian.	Transition services were discussed and provided; no standalone plan required.	No stand-alone transition plan needed; transition services were provided.
Whether lack of observed progress invalidates the IEP	Sebastian did not show progress under the IEPs, signaling inadequacy.	Progress is not sole proof of adequacy; other evidence supports appropriateness.	Progress failure does not alone render an IEP invalid.
Whether Cardinal Cushing placement, and tuition, were appropriate remedies	Private residential placement should be reimbursable due to inadequacy of BICO program.	Residential placement was not the LRE; private placement not warranted.	Cardinal Cushing not required to reimburse; not the LRE; compensatory evaluations awarded instead.
What equitable relief is appropriate for noncompliance with the IEP	Harm from nonimplementation warrants compensatory tuition or services.	Only limited compensatory services were appropriate where nonimplementation occurred.	Compensatory services in the form of updated evaluations are appropriate.

Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist. (Lessard I), 518 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008) (IDEA's standard of adequacy and deference to state agencies)
Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist. (Lessard II), 592 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 2010) (deference in weighing educational judgments; primary responsibility on schools)
Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993) (standard of review for IDEA decisions; 'snap-shot' of progress; due weight to findings)
Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Supreme Court 1982) (educational benefit and adequacy of IEPs; basic floor of opportunity)
Bd. of Educ. v. Burlington, 471 U.S. 359 (Supreme Court 1985) (IEP goal of providing appropriate education; mainstreaming emphasis)
Sch. Comm. of the Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (notice requirements for private/tuition reimbursement under IDEA)