J.P. ex rel. Popson v. West Clark Community School, IP 01-1745-C M/S.
| Citation | 230 F.Supp.2d 910 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. IP 01-1745-C M/S.,IP 01-1745-C M/S. |
| Parties | J.P., by his Parents and Next Friends, M. Todd POPSON and Claudia Popson, Plaintiffs, v. WEST CLARK COMMUNITY SCHOOLS and Clark County Special Education Cooperative, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Dorene J. Philpot, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew M. McNeil, Bose McKinney & Evans, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on a motion by the Defendants, West Clark Community Schools and Clark County Special Education Cooperative (collectively "West Clark"), asking the Court to find that West Clark has met its responsibility to provide J.P. with a free and appropriate public education and that West Clark's proposed educational plan for the 2001-2002 year was reasonably calculated to continue to offer J.P. significant educational benefits. The Plaintiffs, J.P. and his parents, Todd Popson ("T. Popson") and Claudia Popson ("C. Popson") (collectively, the "Popsons"), argue that West Clark's educational program has been designed primarily to keep costs to a minimum and, as a result, has not given J.P. anything more than trivial educational benefits.
J.P. suffers from autism and speech apraxia. Autism is a generic term for a range of neurological disorders which affect different children differently. There is no cure, but autism can be manageable using behavioral and educational interventions. One treatment program that has shown promise for treating autistic children is the Applied Behavior Analysis ("ABA") method used by O. Ivar Lovaas, Ph.D., at the University of California Los Angeles. This program focuses primarily on the use of discrete trial training ("DTT"), a series of short, discrete, one-on-one lessons, with clear beginnings and endings, repeated over and over, with positive reinforcement for correct answers.
The Popsons believe that the ABA/DTT program is so far superior to other programs that it should be recognized by the Court as the only reasonable way to teach autistic children like J.P. West Clark disagrees, preferring to use a variety of techniques which it argues have proven to be successful in treating autistic children. While West Clark's program includes some ABA/DTT training, it also includes a structured classroom, which West Clark urges provides a more meaningful context for the development of functional communication, a greater opportunity for the development of social skills, and an easier transition towards the ultimate goal of placing J.P. in an ordinary classroom.
Given their philosophical differences, West Clark and the Popsons disagree about a number of specific issues regarding the adequacy of the educational services provided by West Clark. In addition, the Popsons feel that their views were not taken seriously. In the Popsons' opinion, West Clark has simply attempted to impose an individualized educational plan ("IEP") upon J.P. without taking into account the Popsons' input, as required by law.
However, the Court finds that the Popsons have failed to prove their underlying claim that the ABA/DTT approach they favor is the only reasonable method for teaching J.P. West Clark has provided the testimony of J.P.'s teachers and of outside educational experts in support of its program. The Court further finds that the fact that the parties had a principled disagreement does not mean that West Clark failed to take the Popsons' views seriously. To the contrary, J.P.'s teachers and school administrators demonstrated a willingness to incorporate ABA/DTT methods into their teaching plans for J.P. In addition, West Clark officials showed flexibility in terms of adding more hours to J.P.'s program (including more one-on-one hours), and in terms of adding more communication goals of the type favored by J.P.'s parents.
The Court is not qualified to arbitrate a dispute about educational methodologies. It is enough that West Clark's approach has been reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefits upon J.P. Therefore, the Court GRANTS West Clark's motion for summary judgment.
Congress enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., to guide and assist states in educating disabled children. In order to receive funding under the IDEA, a state must provide each disabled student with a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"). 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1). This education must be tailored to the unique needs of the disabled student through an individualized education plan ("IEP"). 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). The Seventh Circuit has characterized a "free appropriate public education" as one which guarantees a reasonable probability of educational benefits with sufficient supportive services provided at public expense. Board of Educ. of Community Consol. School Dist. No. 21, Cook County, Ill. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 938 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir.1991), cert denied, 502 U.S. 1066, 112 S.Ct. 957, 117 L.Ed.2d 124 (1992).
In Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the Supreme Court emphasized that there are two aspects to the IDEA's requirement that a school (or local educational agency) provide each disabled child with a FAPE, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). First, the school must provide all of the procedural safeguards laid out in the IDEA. Id. at 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034. Second, the IEP that is ultimately formulated for the child must be appropriate, i.e. "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Id. at 207, 102 S.Ct. 3034.
In crafting the IDEA, Congress placed great importance upon procedural safeguards, apparently believing that those safeguards would go a long way towards ensuring that a reasonable IEP would be formulated for each child covered by the act. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034. An IEP is "a written statement" that must include:
(1) "the child's present levels of educational performance;"
(2) a list of "measurable annual goals" that will "enable the child to be involved in an progress in the general curriculum," which list should also include "benchmarks or short-term objectives" designed to meet the child's specific disability needs;
(3) a determination of "the special education and related services" necessary to enable the child "to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals [and] to be involved and progress in the general curriculum;"
(4) a method for measuring "the child's progress toward the annual goals;" and
(5) a plan for keeping "the child's parents ... informed (by such means as periodic report cards)" about the child's progress, "at least as often as parents are informed of their nondisabled children's progress."
The IEP must be prepared by a "team" composed of:
(1) the parents of the disabled child;
(2) at least one of the child's regular education teachers;
(3) at least one of the child's special education teachers;
(4) a representative of the local educational agency "who is qualified to provide, or supervise ... specially designed instruction [for] children with disabilities, [and who] is knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and ... about the availability of resources of the local educational agency;"
(5) an individual "who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results;" and
(6) other individuals, at the request of the parent or the agency, "who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child."
20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). In formulating an individualized education plan, the IEP team must consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child, the results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation of the child, and other special factors such as strategies for positive behavioral intervention, communication needs, and the need for supplementary aids and services. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3).
The "local educational agency" also must "ensure that the IEP Team reviews the child's IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A). When necessary, the IEP must be revised to address "any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals, ... [any] information about the child provided to, or by, the parents," or any other "anticipated needs" of the child. Id.
The educational agency must provide prior written notice to the parents before deciding to initiate a change or deciding to refuse a change in a disabled child's evaluation or educational placement. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3). The notice must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the agency and a thorough and specific explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c).
The parents must be given an opportunity to examine all records relating to their child and to participate in any meetings regarding the evaluation and educational placement of their child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1). The parents are also entitled to obtain an independent educational evaluation of their child. Id.
If the parents are not satisfied in any matter relating to the provision of a FAPE, they must be given an opportunity to present their complaints. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6). They may also seek mediation in the event that their concerns are not satisfactorily answered. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(5). Or, they may request a due process hearing in an administrative court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d). If the parents are not satisfied with the outcome of the due process hearing, they may institute a civil action appealing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ.
...of one-on-one discrete trial training vs. school based program including some discrete trial training); Popson ex rel. J.P. v. W. Clark Cmty. Sch., 230 F.Supp.2d 910 (S.D.Ind.2002) (Lovaas based "ABA/DTT program" vs. "eclectic At some point, however, this facile answer becomes insufficient.......
-
Coleman v. Pottstown Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 10–07421.
...Educ., 993 F.2d 1031, 1040 (3d Cir.1993) (citing Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206–07, 102 S.Ct. 3034);see also J.P. ex rel. Popson v. West Clark Cmty. Schs., 230 F.Supp.2d 910, 919 (S.D.Ind.2002).C. Procedural Violations of the IDEA and Challenging the Substantive Contents of an IEP 14. Students and......
-
Deal ex rel. Deal v. Hamilton County Dept. of Educ.
...for the handicapped child. Clevenger v. Oak Ridge School Bd., 744 F.2d 514, 516-17 (6th Cir.1984); J.P. ex. rel. Popson v. West Clark Community Schools, 230 F.Supp.2d 910, 941 (S.D.Ind. 2002); L.B. v. Nebo School Dist, 214 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1188 (D.Utah 2002); Matta v. Bd. of Educ.-Indian Hil......
-
J.K. ex rel. Themselves ex rel. K.K-R. v. Missoula Cnty. Pub. Sch., Cause No. CV 15-00122-RWA
...to confer meaningful educational benefits," even though it may be different from the parents' approach. J.P. v. West Clark Comm. Schs., 230 F.Supp.2d 910, 917 (S.D. Ind. 2002). In order to disprove this, parents bear the burden to show that the approach they favor is the only reasonable met......
-
Lex-praxis of Education Informational Privacy for Public Schoolchildren
...do not have an enforceable right to access. See Taylor, 313 F.3d at 783--85; see also J.P. ex rel. Popson v. W. Clark Cmty. Sch., 230 F. Supp. 2d 910, 948--49 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (indicating that FERPA does not create a private right of action for parents to contest the destruction of educatio......