L.H. v. Hamilton Cnty. Dep't of Educ.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:14-CV-00126 |
| Parties | L.H., a Minor Student, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs, L.H., a thirteen-year-old school boy with Down Syndrome, and his parents, G.H. and D.H., seek in this Court a review of a determination by a state administrative law judge (the "ALJ") that the general-education setting in the public schools of Defendant Hamilton County Department of Education ("HCDE") was not appropriate for L.H.
After carefully reviewing that determination and giving it due weight, considering the additional evidence presented by the parties at the evidentiary hearing before this Court, and taking into account the applicable law, the Court reaches its independent decision that HCDE's proposed placement at the Red Bank comprehensive development classroom (the "CDC") was more restrictive than necessary, but that the alternative private placement Plaintiffs chose—The Montessori School of Chattanooga ("TMS")—is not an appropriate educational environment for L.H. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of educating L.H. at TMS.
As a condition for receiving federal funds, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the "IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., requires participating States to provide a "free appropriate public education" (a "FAPE" in education law parlance) for all children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1). It further requires States to educate disabled children alongside nondisabled children "to the maximum extent appropriate"—a mandate known as the "least restrictive environment" (or "LRE") requirement. Id. § 1412(a)(5). Plaintiffs contend this latter requirement means L.H. should be educated in a regular-education classroom at his neighborhood school—Normal Park Museum Magnet School. Defendant HCDE maintains—and the ALJ previously determined—that the general-education setting was not appropriate for L.H. and he needed to spend half of his day receiving academic instruction in the CDC, a self-contained classroom at Red Bank Elementary School designed for children with intellectual disabilities. Plaintiffs now seek review of that determination in this Court.
It is the Court's responsibility to "make an independent decision based on the preponderance of the evidence," while giving "due weight" to the ALJ's findings and conclusions. See Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 849 (6th Cir. 2004) (Deal I) (quotation marks omitted). In fulfilling its responsibility, the Court has very closely examined the evidence presented before it, as well as the evidence received in the administrative hearing.
In deciding issues such as this, the Court proceeds with caution, mindful it lacks the "specialized knowledge and experience necessary to resolve persistent and difficult questions of education policy." Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 208 (1982) (quotation marks omitted). The Court also recognizes, however, that while the determination of sensitive issues such as a child's least-restrictive environment "imposes a difficult burden on the district court[,] [s]ince Congress has chosen toimpose that burden, [the Court] must do [its] best to fulfill [that] duty." Roncker ex rel. Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1062 (6th Cir. 1983). Ultimately, while reasonable minds could differ with the Court's conclusion because the evidence considered as a whole is extremely close, the Court ultimately concludes Plaintiffs have met their burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that L.H.'s proposed placement at the Red Bank CDC was more restrictive than necessary, but they have not established that the alternative private placement they chose at TMS is an appropriate educational environment for L.H. Thus, Plaintiffs are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of educating L.H. at TMS.
In addition to thoroughly reviewing the record of the administrative proceeding, the Court received additional evidence during a hearing held on January 11-14, 21, 25, and 26, 2016. At the hearing, the Court heard from four witnesses called by Plaintiffs and six witnesses called by HCDE, and also received a number of documentary and video exhibits. From these sources, the Court makes the following factual findings.
L.H. has Down Syndrome and is classified as intellectually disabled under the IDEA. This means his intellectual ability falls two standard deviations below the average, or in the bottom 2.2% of the population, and his adaptive behavior, or daily-living skills, are significantly impaired. As is also common with Down Syndrome, L.H.'s receptive and expressive language skills are impaired relative to those of typically developing children. As a result, L.H. qualifies for special-education services under the IDEA and has received these services since he was three years old.
L.H. is, by all accounts, a personable, fun-loving child. He enjoys playing on his iPad, listening to music, and interacting with friends. He is generally respectful and kind, though sometimes he has difficulty expressing himself in socially appropriate ways. L.H. enjoys school and learning, although he occasionally acts out or refuses to work, and he often needs motivators or prompting to help him stay on task. L.H. is a visual and kinesthetic learner and has a good short-term memory.
L.H. attended Normal Park in 2009-2010 (kindergarten), 2010-2011 (first grade), 2011-2012 (repeating first grade), and 2012-2013 (second grade). While at Normal Park, L.H. was educated pursuant to an individualized education program (an "IEP"), a planning document with goals and objectives for the upcoming year formulated based on L.H.'s present levels of performance. This document was prepared and updated annually by L.H.'s parents, HCDE teachers and staff, and other service providers (the "IEP team"). Through second grade, L.H.'s IEPs directed he be taught the regular curriculum in a regular-education classroom alongside typically developing peers. The IEPs also specified certain special-education supports and services to enable L.H. to access the regular curriculum, such as daily "pull-out time" (one-on-one instruction with a special-education teacher outside the regular classroom), "push-in time" (instruction from a special-education teacher in the regular classroom), occupational therapy, speech-language therapy, and a full-time aide.
L.H.'s parents are extremely invested in his educational success and have been highly involved in his education and the process of formulating his IEPs. They strongly made known to HCDE personnel their desires and wishes for L.H.'s education and did not hesitate to point out perceived deficiencies. They also regularly provided HCDE personnel with information regarding Down Syndrome that they thought would assist in L.H.'s educational progress and development. They have worked hard to supplement his education outside the classroom as wellby reading with him and reviewing his homework on a daily basis and by scheduling extensive extracurricular activities for him. L.H.'s parents have high expectations for him and have diligently tried to ensure he is challenged to reach his full potential. It was their strong and clearly stated desire that L.H. be educated in the standard public-school setting and that he be taught the standard curriculum.
L.H. made some progress academically during the first three years he was at Normal Park (kindergarten through first grade), though he did not keep pace with his age-level peers. By the end of first grade, L.H. had learned some basic math concepts, such as using manipulatives to add and subtract numbers to twenty, telling time to the hour and half-hour, and skip-counting by two, five, and ten for four or five steps, but overall, he was functioning at a kindergarten level. L.H.'s independent writing ability was also at or below a kindergarten level, although he was able to write up to two or three sentences at a time. In the area of reading, however, L.H. was relatively advanced. Both his year-end report card and his results on the Woodcock Johnson, an academic assessment given in March 2012, show he was reading at a mid-to-late first-grade level, or nearly on par with his normally developing grade-level peers, although his comprehension level was further behind.
In May 2012, L.H.'s IEP team met to develop his second-grade IEP. At the meeting, HCDE staff members queried whether, given the gap between L.H.'s abilities and second-grade expectations, the team should consider placing L.H. somewhere other than the general-education environment. L.H.'s parents strongly disagreed with this thinking and vocally and vigorously insisted that L.H. remain in the regular-education classroom. Acquiescing to L.H.'s parents' insistence, the final IEP recommended L.H. continue to be educated in a regular-education classroom, with the aid of various special-education supports and services.
While L.H.'s placement remained unchanged, the goals and objectives set forth in the IEP did not. At L.H.'s parents' demands, the educational goals in L.H.'s 2012-2013 IEP were tied closely to regular second-grade curricular goals. Given L.H.'s previous performance and the professional opinions of his teachers and the staff, these goals were unrealistic. They represented a significant step up from the goals contained in L.H.'s 2011-2012 IEP, both in number and in difficulty. To appreciate the difference, compare the goals and objectives from the two IEPs in the areas of language and reading (formatting has been changed for clarity):
• Goal: L.H. will improve his ability to use and understand...
To continue reading
Request your trial