952 F. Supp. 2d 31
D.D.C.2013Background
- Student B.M., age 17, eligible for special education (Other Health Impairment); transferred to Roosevelt High School in Feb 2012.
- May 24, 2012 IEP meeting produced an IEP providing 6.5 hrs/week specialized instruction inside gen-ed and 6.5 hrs/week outside gen-ed; plaintiff (grandmother Mary Turner) attended but refused to discuss goals without one of B.M.’s current special-education teachers.
- Plaintiff filed a due-process complaint alleging (inter alia) an incomplete IEP team, inadequate transition plan, failure to implement the June 23, 2011 IEP, and improper placement.
- Hearing Officer found the IEP team was not fully comprised of B.M.’s special-education teachers (procedural violation) but ruled no denial of FAPE; found transition plan adequate; found specialized instruction outside gen-ed provided but most in-gen-ed support was lacking yet not a material deviation.
- District Court: upheld some procedural findings, reversed on materiality of failure to implement required specialized instruction in the general-education setting for the period between transfer and May 24, 2012, and remanded for determination of compensatory education.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IEP team composition (absence of student’s special-ed teacher) | Turner: absence made IEP substantively deficient and impaired her ability to participate | DCPS: case manager and other members had adequate knowledge; parent attended and declined to participate fully | Court: procedural violation exists but Hearing Officer reasonably found substitutes adequate; no FAPE denial on this ground |
| Parental participation | Turner: lack of special-ed teacher precluded meaningful involvement | DCPS: Turner attended and could have participated; she refused to cooperate | Court: parent refused to participate; not a denial of participation rights |
| Transition plan adequacy (SAT prep, vocational exploration) | Turner: May 2012 IEP failed to include agreed career exploration and SAT prep | DCPS: official IEP minutes show only SAT registration; later IEP remedied vocational concerns, mooting claim | Court: plaintiff failed to carry burden re: SAT prep; vocational claims moot because later IEP addressed them; compensatory claim for past harm not supported |
| Failure to implement June 23, 2011 IEP (specialized instruction in gen-ed) | Turner: DCPS provided no in-gen-ed specialized instruction for ~5 months — material failure to implement FAPE | DCPS: student received other supports (more out-of-class hours, paraprofessional, good grades) so no material failure | Held: Court reverses Hearing Officer — total absence of required in-gen-ed support (11 hrs/wk) was a material failure and denied a FAPE |
| Res judicata on ability of Roosevelt to implement IEP | Turner: prior decision did not decide implementation ability | DCPS: prior (Feb 3, 2012) decision found Roosevelt could implement the IEP | Court: res judicata bars relitigation; prior final judgment found Roosevelt could implement student’s IEP |
| Remedy — compensatory education | Turner: seeks relief for period of inadequate transition and instruction | DCPS: argues mootness and that later IEP cures issues | Court: remands to Hearing Officer to determine individualized compensatory education for denial of FAPE during the period between transfer and May 24, 2012 |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (burden on challenger and standards for remand and compensatory relief)
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (courts should give due weight to educational authorities and not substitute their own policy judgments)
- Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000) (material failure to implement IEP requires more than de minimis deviation)
- Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007) (defines materiality standard for failure-to-implement claims)
- Sumter Cnty. School Dist. 17 v. Heffernan, 642 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2011) (significant lost hours can constitute material failure to implement)