Houston I.S.D. v. Bobby R. et al.
Decision Date | 20 January 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 98-20546,98-20546 |
Citation | 200 F.3d 341 |
Parties | (5th Cir. 2000) HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, V BOBBY R.; JOYCE R.; and CAIUS R., Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and FALLON, District Judge.*
Caius R., a minor child, by and through his parents, Bobby R. and Joyce R., initiated this action against the Houston Independent School District ("HISD") in a claim before a Texas Education Agency ("TEA") hearing officer. The TEA determined that HISD had not provided Caius a "free appropriate public education" as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq. ("IDEA"), and the officer ordered HISD to make certain changes in Caius's education program. On appeal from the TEA's decision, the district court decided in favor of HISD. Concluding that the district provided a free appropriate public education in compliance with the IDEA, we affirm.
Caius attended school in HISD for approximately seven years before being removed to private school in 1997. Within HISD, he struggled from the beginning, in large part because of dyslexia. In kindergarten and first grade, he experienced difficulties in phonics. Although in 1992 HISD recommended that he repeat the first grade, preliminary evaluations of his need for special education indicated that he did not qualify for these special services.
During the summer preceding the 1992-93 school year, Caius's parents sought an independent evaluation of his learning abilities. After conducting a battery of tests, a University of Houston researcher found that Caius suffered from dyslexia and attention deficit disorder. Caius then enrolled in a private school for a substantial portion of the 1992-93 year. Although HISD had recommended repeating first grade, Caius was placed in a second grade class.
In March 1993, Caius returned to HISD at Mitchell Elementary and, in the fall of 1993, began third grade there. After experiencing more difficulties, he was referred in December 1993 for a special education evaluation, which revealed deficiencies in reading, oral language, and written language skills. Pursuant to the IDEA, the HISD convened an Admission, Review, and Dismissal ("ARD") Committee in January 1994 to determine the appropriate means of addressing Caius's learning disability. Having found that his was speech handicapped, the ARD Committee drafted an Individual Education Plan ("IEP") that called for ten hours of reading and language resource placement and one hour of speech therapy per week. Caius continued under the January 1994 IEP during the remainder of the 1993-94 school year.
At the beginning of the 1994-95 year, HISD placed Caius in the fourth grade. HISD experienced some difficulties during that year in implementing the speech therapy provision of the IEP, so from January 18, 1995, through May 17, 1995, a speech therapist was not on staff at Mitchell Elementary. To compensate Caius for the lost speech therapy, HISD authorized extended-year services for him. Consequently, during the summer following the 1994-95 school year, Caius received twenty-five hours in compensatory speech therapy.
In the meantime, however, Caius's parents voiced objections regarding the implementation of his IEP. In particular, they complained of HISD's failures to institute IEP modifications such as highlighted texts, modified tests, and taped lectures.
Before the 1995-96 year, HISD and Caius's parents engaged in extensive discussions regarding the school he would attend. Because it was determined that he learned more readily when information was presented in a multisensory fashion, his parents sought placement at an HISD school that could administer an Alphabetic Phonics ("AP") program. Although an alternative placement could not be established, HISD agreed to provide an itinerant teacher to instruct Caius at Mitchell Elementary until a permanent teacher skilled in AP could be found.
Caius began the AP program in the fall of 1995. Although his instructors changed, the AP program was provided throughout the 1995-96 school year. Nonetheless, his parents continued to criticize HISD's implementation of several modifications to the IEP.
During the spring and fall of 1996, the ARD Committee convened to develop an IEP for Caius's sixth grade year. Under the IEP, he was placed at Codwell Elementary. The plan included seven modifications to his educational program: modified tests, taped texts, highlighted texts, extended time for assignments, shortened assignments, calculator use, and taped assignments. Furthermore, because no teacher at Codwell was trained in AP techniques, HISD began a search for another AP instructor for Caius.
Despite its efforts, for two months Caius did not receive AP training. During that time, his parents refused to accept the compensatory AP services offered by HISD. Through their complaints to HISD, they also questioned the amount of progress Caius was making under the IEP and the extent to which his teachers were implementing the modifications to the August 1996 IEP.
In October 1996, Caius's parents sought administrative review of the IEP. Following two days of hearings in February 1997, the TEA hearing officer filed written findings of fact and conclusions of law, deciding that the reading and language goals set forth in Caius's IEP's were "reasonable and calculated to provide . . . an educational benefit." But she also found that HISD had failed to implement, "consistently or appropriately," an AP program, IEP modifications, or speech therapy. The hearing officer thus concluded that HISD's failures in these areas had deprived Caius of a "free appropriate public education" under the IDEA.
Following entry of the hearing officer's decision, the parties failed to negotiate a new IEP for Caius for the 1997-98 school year. In response, his parents sought private compensatory services during the summer of 1997, and, before the start of the 1997-98 year, his parents withdrew him from HISD and placed him at a private school at their expense and without HISD's approval.
HISD appealed the TEA hearing officer's decision to the district court, which, on cross motions for summary judgment, held that the TEA had erred in its analysis of whether Caius had indeed received a "free appropriate public education" as required by the IDEA. The court reasoned that he had shown improvement in most areas of study and therefore had received an educational benefit in accordance with the goals of the IDEA. The court then granted HISD's motion for summary judgment and denied Caius's cross motion for summary judgment. The court also dismissed Caius's counterclaim for reimbursement for the costs of the private compensatory services.
Caius challenges the determination that HISD provided him with a "free appropriate public education" in accordance with the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq. Specifically, he points to HISD's failure to provide a speech therapist for a substantial portion of the 1994-95 term, its failure to provide an AP program for approximately two months during the beginning of the 1996-1997 year, and its general failures consistently to provide highlighted and taped texts in accordance with the IEP.
HISD responds first by acknowledging the failures summarized by Caius and by noting that, as a result, there are no genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. HISD disagrees, however, with the legal conclusions to be drawn from those failures. It argues that, rather than holding that any failure to implement an element of an IEP amounts to denial of a free appropriate public education under the IDEA, we should look to the overall educational benefit received by the child and to whether the IEP was substantially or materially implemented.
(C) a statement of the specific educational services to be provided to such child, and the extent to which such child will be able to participate in regular educational programs, . . .
(E) the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration of such services, and
(F) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved.
20 U.S.C. 1401(20).
The crafting of an IEP is subject to extensive procedural and substantive requirements. For instance, the IDEA provides procedural safeguards that allow the parents an opportunity to challenge the establishment or implementation of the IEP in an "impartial due process hearing which shall be conducted by the State educational agency . . . as determined by State law." 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(2). In Texas, the hearing is conducted before the TEA.
The IDEA also provides for civil actions and jurisdiction in federal district court ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S.F. v. McKinney Indep. Sch. Dist.
... ... The court must reach an independent decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2000); Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch ... Richardson ISD v. Michael Z., 580 F.3d 286, 292 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2009) ("[A]t the district court level, as at the ... ...
-
JL v. FRANCIS HOWELL R-3 SCHOOL DIST.
... ... See T.F., 449 F.3d at 818; Neosho, 315 F.3d at 1022; Strawn, 210 F.3d at 958; ISD No. 283, 88 F.3d at 561. Additionally, the court will review the administrative record and ... other authorities failed to implement substantial or significant provisions of the IEP." Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir.2000); Neosho, 315 F.3d at 1027. As ... ...
-
J.B. v. Frisco Indep. Sch. Dist.
... ... filed this lawsuit asserting claims against Frisco Independent School District ("Frisco ISD") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") and Section 504 of the ... " Renee J. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. , 333 F. Supp. 3d 674, 688 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (quoting Endrew F. , 137 S. Ct. at ... , 2020 WL 4434928, at *8 (citing Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R. , 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2000) ). Moreover, "when a learning-disabled student is being ... ...
-
L.J. ex rel. N.N.J. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty.
... ... under the IDEA follow the material failure approach articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Houston Indep. School District v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir.2000), cert. den., 531 U.S. 817, ... ...
-
Perfect Adherence or Material Deviation?: the Eleventh Circuit's Bright Idea in Resolving Individualized Education Plan Implementation Cases
...Id. at 1206. 4. See generally Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007); Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000); Sumter Cty. Sch. Dist. 17 v. Heffernan, 642 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2011); A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. Of Educ., 370 Fed.Appx. 202 (2d Cir. ......
-
Education Equity During COVID-19: Analyzing In-Person Priority Policies for Students with Disabilities.
...(127.) Id. at 822. (128.) Id. (129.) N.N.J. ex rel. L.J. v. Sch. Bd., 927 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2019). (130.) Id. at 1211. (131.) 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. (132.) Karen S. ex rel. Melissa S. v. Sch. Dist., 183 F. App'x 184, 187 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that "a plaintiff must show that......