March 2008 - Residential placement

Case of the Month: L.G. & K.G. v. School Board of Palm Beach County

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

The parents of an 8 year old boy with an emotional disturbance sought reimbursement for a unilateral private residential placement. The administrative law judge found reimbursement was not required, and both the federal district court and 11th Circuit agreed. L.G. & K.G. v. School Board of Palm Beach County (11th Circuit, October 16, 2007)(unpublished).

The student, adopted at birth, was diagnosed with a mood disorder, impulse control disorder, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. He began exhibiting serious behavior problems at age 3. The family moved from New York, where the school district had recommended a residential placement, to Florida, where the team, after reviewing the NY IEP, developed a new IEP and placed the student in a therapeutic day school. After a hospitalization following an episode of violent behavior at home, his parents placed him in a residential program and then sought reimbursement from the district.

The IDEA requires districts to use the least restrictive means to educate students with disabilities, and is forbidden from funding a placement that fails to educate a student in the least restrictive environment. Reimbursement for private placement is only available under the IDEA if the parents demonstrate that the district did not provide an appropriate education and the parent's placement was proper under the IDEA. The standard for an appropriate education is whether a student is making "measurable and adequate gains in the classroom", not whether the child's progress in a school setting carried over to the home setting (citing Devine v. Indian River County School Board (11th Cir 2001)). Because the evidence indicated that he was making progress in the classroom, and all of the parents' evidence related to the student's out of school behavior, the parents were not entitled to reimbursement.

Lesson learned: Here, the school district was able to show that the therapeutic day school provided a broader array of services than the student's day school in New York, "such as certified teachers, on-site clinical therapy," and programs tailored for students with emotional disturbances. Further, although the family moved to the district at the beginning of the summer, the district acted immediately to develop an IEP for the student and offered ESY services, which the parent declined. Also, because the parents were concerned about the day school program, the school agreed to a nine week trial period at the day school and to help the parents access community resources through an assigned caseworker who could coordinate services such as respite care, behavior management training, and at home therapy. [The district court decision is reported at 47 IDELR 64 (January 26, 2007)] All of these factors were material to the finding that the district had offered FAPE to the student.