June 2009

Case of the Month: L.I. v. Maine School Administrative District, (1st Cir., 2007) - "adverse impact"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First, this is a case from the First Circuit, which is not precedent in Oregon. But it is instructive for a state like Oregon that does not have a specific definition of "adverse impact" as some states apparently do. While not "new" - it was decided in March 2007 - I just read it again and it provides very detailed analysis of the eligibility framework under the IDEA.

The story: L.I. was a sixth grade student who excelled academically but experienced "sadness, anxiety, and difficulty with peer relationships". She attempted suicide with her prescription medication, was hospitalized, and her parents sought special education services for her. They had her evaluated by a private neuropsychologist who identified Asperger's syndrome and a depressive disorder. This and other evaluations identified limitations in adaptive skills, executive skills, poor pragmatic language abilities and poor social skills. The evaluators recommended social skills intervention and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The district found that she was not eligible under the IDEA because although she apparently met the disability criteria for autism (not completely clear in the case), the disability did not have an adverse impact on her education. The court disagreed, stating that adverse impact on education was broader than just academics and "adverse impact" did not have a qualifier attached - such as substantial, significant or marked. So, just about any "adverse impact" (negative impact) would be enough. "[N]o impact, or a positive one, will not do." The team still had to find that the student needed "special education services". Here, the student needed social skills intervention which had an instructional component so was sufficient for the needing special education prong.

Lessons learned:

This case suggests that what we think of as a three prong requirement for eligibility (meets disability criteria, has adverse impact, and needs special education) is really a two prong - meets disability criteria and needs special education as a result. The "adverse impact" is really the connector between the other two. There must be a connection between the disability and the need for special education services. How much of an impact? Enough to require special education services. Courts seem to take a more pragmatic (rather than technical) view of this issue.