|
Does
the failure to provide a copy of the notice of procedural safeguards
to an "adult" special education student constitute a per se violation
of the special education act, requiring an award of compensatory
educational services? No, says the federal district court in Bruno
v. Greenwich Bd. of Educ. ("Board"). In a short decision, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board against David
Bruno, an adult plaintiff who claimed procedural and substantive
violations by the Board during his tenure as a special education
student in 1999-2000.
The plaintiff,
a graduate of Greenwich High School, received special education
services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act ("IDEA"). Bruno's key claim in the case was the assertion that
the Board's failure to provide him with a copy of the pamphlet entitled
"Procedural Safeguards for Parents of Children in Special Education"
was a gross violation of IDEA. The court found no such violation,
indicating that Bruno participated in all the Planning and Placement
Team ("PPT") meetings upon reaching the age of majority, and he
admitted understanding his rights conferred under IDEA. The Board's
non-compliance with the statute's notice requirements did not preclude
Bruno from a meaningful opportunity to participate in the collaborative
Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") process. Since there was no
evidence that the Board took advantage of Bruno's disabilities to
deny him an appropriate educational opportunity, the failure to
provide a copy of the Procedural Safeguards did not rise to the
level of a gross violation of IDEA.
The court
also found that the Board did not violate IDEA's substantive provisions,
noting that Bruno graduated with a 2.3 grade point average; that
he "showed growth in terms of social interaction;" and that he made
adequate progress in his educational studies. While the court concluded
that Bruno may have benefited from more services, it noted that
school boards need not provide optimal levels of services. Here,
Bruno's IEP met the "basic floor of opportunity," thereby satisfying
the requirements for a free appropriate public education ("FAPE").
See Bd. of Educ. Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley,
458 U.S. 176, 206 (1982). The decision contains a nice refresher
of IDEA's requirements, and the federal courts' interpretation of
what constitutes a FAPE.
(JES)
|
