|
The District
Court grants defendant school board's ("Board") motion for summary
judgment in this appeal of a Due Process hearing officer's decision
in a special education case. The case focuses on two interesting
issues: first the jurisdictional question of the district court's
right to hear issues that were allegedly not raised at the districts
planning and placement team ("PPT") meeting and second, the analysis
of whether the plaintiffs could meet their burden of establishing
that the district's Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") was appropriate
in light of the parent's unilateral removal of their son to an out
of district placement.
P.B.
is an identified special education student diagnosed with a learning
disability (dyslexia) and attention deficit disorder ("ADD"). His
parents unilaterally placed him at the Kildonan School (an out of
district program) in 1997, and there he remained through the 2001-2002
school year. The sole issue for the district court was whether the
parents were entitled to reimbursement for placement at Kildonan
for the 2001-2002 school year. At the conclusion of the 2000-2001
school year, two PPT's were conducted pursuant to a triennial review
and to formulate an appropriate educational placement for the following
year. The PPT proposed an IEP and placement at Danbury High School,
and P.B.'s parent's unilaterally placed him at Kildonan for the
2001-2002 school year. The parents then appealed the Board's refusal
to pay tuition at Kildonan to a Due Process Hearing. The Hearing
Officer upheld the Board's position.
On appeal
to the district court, the Board raised a jurisdictional question,
contending that federal jurisdiction was improper because the plaintiffs
did not specifically object to the Board's proposed IEP's at the
two PPT's in the spring of 2001. As a result, they were barred from
arguing that the Hearing Officer improperly determined the IEP to
be appropriate. The court found that the plaintiffs not only objected
to the contents of the IEP, but to one of the PPT meetings itself
because the neuropsychologist had not completed her evaluation and
report. In addition, because the Board had not objected during the
Due Process hearing to the plaintiffs' contentions, and because
the Hearing officer had not exercised her authority to dismiss the
issues for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiffs'
claims survived the jurisdictional challenge.
On the
merits, however, the court found that the plaintiffs could not meet
their burden under the two-part Burlington test, which addresses
reimbursement for unilateral placements. See Sch. Comm. of Burlington
v. Dept. of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). Under Burlington,
the court determines first whether the proposed IEP is appropriate.
To be appropriate, the state must comply with the procedural requirements
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") and
fashion an IEP that is "reasonably calculated to enable the child
to receive educational benefits." Second, if the IEP is inappropriate,
the court determines if the plaintiff's choice of placement is appropriate.
Here,
the court determined that the P.B.'s IEP was educationally appropriate.
In a detailed dissertation of the evidence presented at the hearing,
the court found that the board met its burden of establishing that
the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable P.B. to receive educational
benefits. While the evidentiary specifics are too comprehensive
to present here, the court noted with understanding that while "loving
parents can create a better special education program aimed at maximizing
their child's potential, that is not he standard by which [the court]
review[s] the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions. " In its
opinion, the court provides a thorough review of the test results,
expert testimony, the proposed IEP and placement at Danbury High
School, and its logic for finding that the IEP met the standards
espoused in Burlington and P.J. v. State of Conn. Bd.
of Educ., 788 F. Supp. 678 (D. Conn. 1992).
(JES)
|
