e-Bulletin: California Special Education Case Law Update

Federal Court Rulings

9th Circuit

HOOD v. ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 18924 (9th Cir. 4/09/07)

Eligibility. The district had no obligation to provide special education or related services because the child's educational needs could be met in a general classroom. The 9th Circuit clarified that Rowley's "basic floor of opportunity" standard also applies to eligibility determinations. "Just as courts look to the ability of a disabled child to benefit from the services provided to determine if that child is receiving an adequate special education, it is appropriate for courts to determine if a child classified as non-disabled is receiving adequate instruction in the general classroom -- and thus not entitled to special education services -- using the benefit standard.”

U.S. District Court

SAN RAFAEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 20631 (N.D. Cal. 3/28/07)

FAPE. In upholding the District’s offer of FAPE to a child with autism and serious behavioral issues, the court ruled that generalization across settings is not required to show an educational benefit and that anything "more than making measurable and adequate gains in the classroom, [is] not required by IDEA or Rowley." Nor is a district required to address all of the emotional or behavioral problems a student may have, regardless of where and when those problems manifest. The District’s proposed placement was appropriate, as it was “geared primarily towards educating emotionally disturbed students, most of whom have verbal or physical aggression problems and other disruptive behaviors, including noncompliance issues.”

K.S v. FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 18483 (N.D. Cal. 3/23/07)

Educational discrimination. A child with autism spectrum disorder can pursue Section 504 and ADA claims based on allegations the district was deliberately indifferent to her educational needs. Determining the District's alleged failure to consider key information about the student's needs amounted to more than a mere denial of FAPE, the court denied the District's motion to dismiss the child's discrimination claim. The claims alleged, “that [the district] 'ignored parent concerns and requests as well as documentary evidence of [the child's] needs.'"

OAH Due Process Rulings

ETIWANDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 16067 (SEA CA 3/15/07)

Eligibility. The District did not deny FAPE by failing to find a student eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability. Although he established that by the time of a March 27, 2006 IEP team meeting he had been diagnosed with a central auditory processing disorder, more is required to be eligible for special education under the SLD category. His academic performance was commensurate with his intellectual ability. Because the student was ineligible for special education during the relevant time periods, he was not entitled to compensatory education.

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 16071 (SEA CA 3/15/07)

FAPE. A 19-year-old with MR and mentally incompetent did not show that the District failed to provide her with a FAPE during the 2005-06 school year. Nor did she prove that aides hired by the District to provide her 1:1 instruction were not adequately trained. While she did show that the District failed to provide a second set of textbooks and data collection as required by the special factors page of her IEP, neither of those minor omissions deprived her of educational benefit or prevented her from receiving a FAPE. The District provided the remaining services, accommodations, and supplemental aids and services called for in the IEP.

MORELAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 16077 (SEA CA 3/15/07)

FAPE. A student derives educational benefit under Rowley even if most of his goals and objectives are not met, as long as he makes progress toward some of them. Here, a 6-year-old with S/L impairment and substantial cognitive limitations derived academic benefit from his current IEP and made meaningful and non-trivial progress under it. The student did not prove that, in light of those limitations, he has the ability to progress more rapidly than he is progressing now. The modest objectives of the educational programs for children with MR are related to each child's potential. They typically include “acquiring additional self help skills, avoiding institutionalization or attaining that level of independence with regard to self care that he or she can live in a community living arrangement or at home and work in a sheltered workshop.” 

CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 16073 (SEA CA 3/13/07)

FAA/BIP. The District performed a functional analysis assessment (FAA), which led to a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) for a child with autism and ADHD. The ALJ rejected claims that the FAA was defective in multiple respects and that the BIP failed to follow the statutory requirements. Even though necessary information was omitted from the BIP, and both the BIP and the FAA could have been written with more detail, the teachers providing services to the student used the BIP effectively. In fact, they were so successful in using the BIP that it was faded out in the late 2004-05 school year. Nor did the student show that the defects in the FAA or the BIP adversely affected his parents' ability to participate in his IEPs, or that it denied him an educational opportunity.

YUCAIPA-CALIMESA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 16075 (SEA CA 3/07/07)

IEE. An OT evaluator's decision to have an ABA aide complete a parental questionnaire addressing a preschooler's behavior means the District must pay for an independent OT assessment. Acknowledging that the evaluator followed protocol in all other respects, the District's evaluation of the child was inappropriate. The independent evaluator also reached "very different" conclusions in a subsequent evaluation using information provided by the parent. The ALJ criticized the OT assessor's failure to review the complete files of the child's previous OT and neurological assessments.

SANTA MONICA - MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 107 LRP 16069 (SEA CA 3/02/07)

Eligibility. The student lost his claim that he was eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability, based on an attention deficit disorder. Standardized testing did not reveal a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement. He was also capable of completing his schoolwork at grade level if given sufficient time. Nor did his grades provide evidence of a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement. His low classroom grades were based on his failure to timely complete independent work assignments. Student's teachers for the past three school years all credibly testified that his completion of school work mainly depended on his motivation to do so. He has average intellectual ability, is capable of demonstrating average academic achievement on standardized tests, and is capable of completing independent school work when motivated.

View past Special Education Law Update Bulletins

___________________________________________________________________
For more details on these case rulings or their implications for your agency, contact an attorney with the School Law Practice Group.

Disclaimer: BB&K eBulletins are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué. ©2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP