Latest Findings from Recent Special Education Court Cases
In the past decade, there has been a clear trend in the nation’s courts to hand down rulings that demonstrate a preference for enforcing more favorable treatment of students covered under special education law and the IDEA. This trend is evidenced by particularly significant decisions, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglass School District. In that case, the Court held that students with disabilities are entitled to more than "merely more than de minimis" progress in order to receive a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE"). As the Court noted, "for kids fully integrated into regular classrooms—or those on the verge of such placements—merely sending them to the classes where they can heap on academic progress on subjects already mastered is not an advance." It further held that if an IEP will provide "significant educational progress , " then it will be qualified as reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE.
Given that this decision was handed down just last year, it is difficult to determine whether the circuits will accept the standards set out in Endrew. In fact, it has been nearly 35 years since the last time the Court ruled on an IEP placement dispute. As such, the Court’s opinion on the IEP process may establish a new set of standards going forward. However, keen observers know that sometimes the most telling indicators of trends in special education case law are found in district court-specifically in the district courts themselves, as these little known courts often act as the first screen for final review. By employing a longitudinal analysis of administrative-level proceedings, along with with case law research at the district court and appellate court levels, we can analyze and breakdown some of the most relevant propositions coming out of the last decade’s most significant cases.
Case Studies for Landmark Court Settlements
The future of special education is being shaped in the courts, thanks to landmark decisions that have serious implications for how special needs students are educated. The decisions in the following cases are among the most notable in the last two years, due to their potential to influence special education policy across the country.
Decision: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District that the "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires more of a school district than simply providing an adequate education.
In this case, a student with autism was not making meaningful progress in school. His parents placed him in a private facility that catered to his special needs, and the student showed great improvement. When they appealed the district’s refusal to reimburse them the cost of his tuition, the lower federal court ruled that the school’s IEP had met the FAPE requirement because it was "reasonably calculated to enable [the student] to receive educational benefits."
This case is notable not only because it was the first in almost 40 years to make it to the Supreme Court for review of FAPE standards, but because it made the court clarify what "FAPE" means in broad, student-centric terms. The court’s final ruling states that a FAPE requires more than "merely more than de minimis" progress and "must be appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances."
Decision: Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools
The Endrew decision was only a few months old when it was reinforced by another landmark case that did not even mention the word "FAPE." In the end of 2016, the court ruled unanimously in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools that a parent can file an action in federal court without having to first go through IDEA’s administrative procedures if the suit is based on a denial of civil rights in the education setting.
This case directly involved a student use of medical equipment in school, a big issue for students with special needs who require medical support while at school. The student in Fry complained that her school would not let her use her service dog during the day. The school argued that the student was required to first exhaust IDEA’s administrative procedures for grievances, but the court found that prior administrative proceedings were not an obstacle because the case was grounded in civil rights law and did not challenge her IEP.
Decision: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1
Even before Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District was decided, two cases with nearly identical facts made their way through the lower courts at the same time. They both had the same outcome, which led to their being considered by the Supreme Court as together granting certiorari.
A boy with autism was not making meaningful progress in classroom and was placed in a specialized private school. After he showed significant improvement at the private school, his parents sought to have the district reimburse them for the cost. The federal circuit court found for the school district on the basis that the district’s IEP provided similar benefits to that of the private school. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which in 2017 decided in the first prominent case that "FAPE" means more than just "any educational benefit."
Both cases were remanded back to the district court. In the second case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s IEP finding in favor of the school district. The Supreme Court again granted certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal of that ruling. On March 21, 2018, the Supreme Court decided the case in special needs student’s favor – essentially maintaining the precedent set in the Endrew case.
Effect of the Cases on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)
The idea behind IEPs is that they should be tailored to the needs of the child, but what should you do when a parent demands services that the child clearly does not need? The danger in a situation like that is if the parents go out and hire an expert who is willing to say that their child needs A, B and C. And then there is the dilemma for the school district. You want to do what is right for the child but you don’t want to have an outside expert dictate what services the school must provide.
In 2014 and 2015, the Federal District Court in California has decided two cases where a school district refused to grant an IME to allow a third party to set forth what services the student required. The first case, W.S. v. Pomona Unified School District, was decided on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The District’s position was that the IDEA did not require them to provide a third-party evaluation at the district’s expense. The Court decided that parents can obtain independent evaluations at public expense if the educational agency refuses to evaluate. However, the Court found that there was no law that required the district to pay for evaluations that a parent does not consider "educationally helpful." The Court held that the IDEA does not require a school district to submit to the will of parents: "the IDEA safeguards against parental manipulation over the IEP process," and that parents were the "check" against any potential abuses.
In the second case, Ramirez v. L.A. Unified School District, also out of the Federal District Court in California, the parents actually moved to amend their complaint to add claims for all the services that they had previously demanded but had been denied by the District. In this case, the parents wanted the assessments to determine their child’s auditory processing disorder. The parents did not ask the District to contravene their IEP, but rather requested that the District assess what she seemed to need based upon her performance in school. The District refused without providing any basis for its refusal. The parents then obtained an IME at the District’s expense. The Court held that the District was required to consider any assessment "not simply to disregard or give short shrift to the independent evaluator’s conclusion."
The rulings in these cases make it clear that although the District is not required under IDEA to have an outside assessment, once the assessment is given, the School must consider it along with all the data from the IEP team.
Parents and their Role in Recent Legal Cases
The role of parents and advocacy in recent special education litigation is significant. Many of the most noteworthy recent cases began when a parent identified a potential procedural error within an IEP and brought a complaint. For example, a parent initiating a civil rights complaint at the U.S. Department of Education was responsible for a 2012 significant policy shift in how the Department determines whether a school has properly implemented a student’s IEP. In Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Case No. 101220-208, 112 LRP 43703 (OCR April 10, 2012), OCR found that a student was deprived of educational benefit during the period her school failed to implement her IEP, and that remedy for the student included compensatory services for the missed services, as well as an IEP review to develop and implement appropriate compensatory services.
Since Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Case No. 101220-208, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the Department of Education has clarified its interpretation of the statute. OSEP issued a dear colleague letter responding to comments received during the rulemaking process on eligibility criteria for guiding a school district’s decisions about when a student is making meaningful progress under an IEP . Dear Colleague Letter to Technical Assistance and Dissemination Networks (TAD Net), U.S. Department of Education, 115 LRP 1909 (OSEP Feb. 6, 2015). OSEP concluded that any failure to implement an IEP is inherently substantive, and therefore even "minor" issues reflect a lack of IEP implementation when they prevent the student from receiving IEP services or when they alter the provision of required IEP services.
Advocacy groups have also played a role in high-profile cases that call into question public schools’ authority to place students following the procedure articulated in the district’s Special Education Policy. In Doe v. Cape Elizabeth School District, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14471 (D. Me. Feb. 4, 2016), the District Court recently examined the special education policy and procedures of a school that had repeatedly removed a student with autism from his least restrictive environment. Notably, the District ultimately allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on their substantive claims that the school failed to implement the student’s IEP by unilaterally changing his placement.
As evident in the cases above, advocacy groups play a highly active role in driving change through litigation. Their efforts, when effective, can influence the behavior of a school district well beyond the scope of the individual case.
Future Court Cases for Special Education
There are several noted areas of potential conflict that educators, parents, advocates, and attorneys should keep an eye on in the coming year or years. First and foremost is how the courts will interpret the new standard of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Endrew F v. Douglas County Center case. Some, but certainly not all, federal districts have adopted the new standard while others are reluctant. It is most likely that it will be a few years before there is any true consensus and only then after the appellate courts have weighed in.
Another area that may present challenges is the implementation of Universal Functional Accessibility Standards (UFAS) impacting the accessibility of public schools to students with disabilities. The use of UFAS will certainly generate conflict with local schools and puts further burden on school districts—this time with unfunded mandates. Perhaps most challenging, however, will have to do with the legal definition of Disproportionate Impact as a result of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issuing new guidance that schools have violated Anti-discrimination laws by disproportionately disciplining minority students with disabilities . What does this mean for a school district? The implications are staggering and likely to result in a significant increase in complaints filed with OCR, more law suits alleging discrimination, and perhaps even Department of Justice involvement. What is the safe, legal way to conduct a fair and just discipline program—nowhere for public schools to go but to consult counsel.
Finally, there is likely to be additional litigation resulting from the conflicts of two federal statutes that could arguably have fundamentally conflicting principles. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a civil right and an education act, requires that children be in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) possible to meet their needs. Section 504, the civil rights act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, has long been viewed as requiring full inclusion of children in all school activities to the maximum extent appropriate. The tension between the two conflicts has not really been litigated; given improved technology and more children with complex needs entering public schools, this is likely another area destined for conflict in the courts.
+ There are no comments
Add yours