762 F. Supp. 2d 254
D. Mass.2010Background
- Sudbury challenges a BSEA decision ordering reimbursement to Parent for private placement at The Carroll School during the 2009-2010 year, finding Sudbury failed to offer FAPE.
- The IEP Team proposed a 2009-2010 IEP placing Student in the Curtis Middle School LLD program with pull-out and general education in some classes.
- Parent-unilaterally enrolled Student at Carroll School in prior years and sought reimbursement for 2009-2010; she retained experts whose evaluations suggested small-class placement.
- The Hearing Officer credited Parent’s experts and Carroll School witnesses, concluding the LLD program did not sufficiently tailor for Student’s needs in science and social studies.
- Sudbury argued the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and that the Hearing Officer improperly weighed evidence and witnesses; the court reviewed under the IDEA’s deferential standard.
- The district court ultimately affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision, awarded stay-put reimbursement, and allowed pending reimbursement for the Carroll placement to continue during appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2009-2010 IEP offered FAPE | Sudbury | Parent | Affirmed: IEP did not offer FAPE; Hearing Officer’s finding supported by record |
| Retroactive reimbursement for private placement | Sudbury questioned equity of reimbursement given proceedings | Parent entitled if private placement proper and public IEP inappropriate | Affirmed: stay-put reimbursement appropriate based on merits and equities |
| Stay-put rights pending review | Sudbury | Parent | Affirmed: Carroll School remained current placement pending appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (standard: FAPE through personalized instruction with sufficient support)
- Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (stay-put and private placement reimbursement logic)
- Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993) (deferential review in IDEA proceedings)
- Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Sch. Dist., 518 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008) (IEP must provide some educational benefit; Rowley standard)
- K.L.A. v. Windham Southeast Supervisory Union, 371 Fed. Appx. 151 (2d Cir. 2010) (cited for context on parental conduct in IEP process)