Date:  July 2007

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of the Napa Valley Unified School District in an important case dealing with eligibility for special education services. CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance filed an amicus brief in support of the district. The case hinged on whether a student with behavioral problems was eligible for special education services, even though her behavioral issues did not impact her ability to achieve academically.

Background

Student R.B. had neurological health issues and subsequently displayed severe emotional symptoms and was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. As a preschooler, she was found eligible for special education services as a student with a specific learning disability and, as a kindergartener, she was placed in a regular classroom with support from a resource specialist.

During first grade, the district concluded that R.B. no longer qualified for special education services and instead determined that she qualified for a behavioral intervention plan under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. R.B.’s parents agreed with this change. Although she had occasional behavioral problems in school, she consistently received high grades and made appropriate progress on state standardized tests. She made the school’s honor roll. Her behavior deteriorated in fifth grade, and a behavioral support plan was developed by the district. R.B.’s mother sought an independent assessment and unilaterally placed her in residential treatment. The district determined again that her emotional problems were not affecting her educational performance. The family claimed that they were entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the private assessment and private placement.

Both the special education hearing officer and the lower court judge ruled in the district’s favor that the eligibility criteria had not been met. Furthermore, even if the criteria had been met, both the hearing officer and judge determined there was no impact on R.B.’s educational performance.

Court decision

The court analyzed whether R.B. qualified for special education as a child with a “serious emotional disturbance” pursuant to 34 CFR 300.7 and 5 CCR 3030 and found that her inappropriate behavior did not meet the definition of “serious emotional disturbance” because it did not affect her educational performance. The parents argued that R.B.’s grades (A’s, B’s, and one D and average achievement test scores) should not be a “litmus test” and that the court should instead consider whether her performance was below her ability. The 9th Circuit disagreed and held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not guarantee the “absolutely best” or “potential-maximizing” education but, rather, a “basic floor of opportunity.”

The court also analyzed whether the composition of the Individual Education Program team resulted in a lost educational opportunity for R.B. The law requires that the IEP team must include “at least one regular education teacher.” The parents argued that the district’s IEP team did not satisfy the law since the team included R.B.’s kindergarten teacher, who taught the child six years before the IEP meeting, and did not include her special education teacher from the private school in which the parents had placed her. The court held that the language of IDEA gives districts discretion in selecting the regular education teacher, so IDEA was not violated by the inclusion of the kindergarten teacher.

The parents also argued that the district violated the law by failing to include on the IEP team R.B.’s current special education teacher from the private school and instead including a district special education teacher who had never taught R.B. According to the court, the district did not need to include the special education teacher from the private placement, but the special education teacher selected by the district was not adequate because that teacher had not actually taught the child.

Despite these procedural flaws in the composition of the IEP team, because the parents did not first establish IDEA eligibility, the subsequent procedural violations constituted harmless errors and did not result in a loss of educational opportunity for R.B.

Impact

This case is important because it is one of the first in the 9th Circuit to address the issue of an emotionally disturbed student's eligibility for special education. The court’s reconfirmation that IDEA does not guarantee a potential-maximizing education for an individual child, and that the disability needs to adversely affect educational performance for a child to qualify for special education services, is an important decision for districts.

Related link

A copy of this decision can be found at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0516404p.pdf