September 2009

Case of the Month: J.L. v. Mercer Island (9th Circuit, August 6, 2009)

Rowley lives!

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

Two years after a US District Court in Washington declared the 1982 US Supreme CourtRowley standard obsolete, the 9th Circuit wholeheartedly disagreed, endorsingRowley without hesitation.

The story: J.L., a student with learning disabilities, received school district special education services through ninth grade, except for two years in a parent-placed private school for students with reading problems. Over the years, the district provided special education services in reading, writing and math, and responded to the occasional parent concern by making minor changes as needed. J.L. generally made progress toward her IEP goals (though did not meet each objective), and earned A's and B's with the occasional C.

At the end of 9th grade, through a series of IEP/placement meetings, the parents requested that the district fund an out-of-state private residential school; the district disagreed, at the same time refusing to write a specific teaching methodology into the IEP because the "experts recommended several effective programs, not just a single 'right' choice." The district's IEP for 10th grade offered about 3.5 hours per day of special education services in reading, writing, math, study skills and transition skills, along with accommodations in J.L.'s general education classes (e.g. books on tape).

After an eleven day hearing, the administrative law judge ruled for the district, finding that the district's proposed IEP provided a free appropriate public education as required by Rowley. On appeal, in an extreme "outlier" opinion, the federal district court stated that Rowley no longer applied, and, ultimately, that the district had not provided IEPs that would provide the student with "economic self-sufficiency" and other transition-mandated outcomes, and was required to fund the private program in its entirety (about $150,000 for three years and an equivalent amount in attorney fee reimbursement).

The 9th circuit affirmed Rowley, found no procedural violations, and remanded to district court to decide whether the ALJ was correct in finding the District complied withRowley.

Lessons learned:

• In footnote 10, the Court clarified that the terms "educational benefit", "some educational benefit" and "meaningful educational benefit" all mean the same thing. Under Rowley, "[s]chool districts must, to 'make such access meaningful', confer at least 'some educational benefit' on disabled students." Rowley does not require publicly-funded services above and beyond that threshold.
• The district's "pre-meeting" did not constitute impermissible "pre-determination" because the court had no evidence that any decisions were made at this preparatory meeting; the district changed some aspects of the IEP at the actual meeting which provided further evidence that the IEP meeting was not a "take it or leave it" process.
• The district did not violate the IDEA by not writing a specific methodology into the IEP where various teaching methodologies could be effective with J.L.