Maple Heights City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Individually ex rel. A.W.
| Decision Date | 27 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:14CV1033 |
| Parties | MAPLE HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. A.C. Individually and on behalf of A.W. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on both Petitioner's and Respondent's appeals of certain rulings of the State Level Review Officer ("SLRO"). These appeals involve A.C.'s Individualized Education Program ("IEP") as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). For the following reasons, the Court affirms the decisions of the SLRO in all respects.
"The purpose of the IDEA is to give children with disabilities a free appropriate public education designed to meet their unique needs." Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 853 (6th Cir. 2004), aff'd sub nom. Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Dep't of Educ., 258 F. App'x 863 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(25), 1412). Pursuant to a school district's obligations to provide a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"), school districts receiving funds under the IDEA are required to establish an IEP for each child with a disability. Knable ex rel. Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755, 762 (6th Cir.2001) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5)). The IEP must "contain a specific statement of the child's current performance levels, the child's short-term and long-term goals, the educational and other services to be provided, and criteria for evaluating the child's progress." Id. at 763 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(20)).
Knable, 238 F.3d at 763 citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b). "Any party may appeal the result of this hearing to an SLRO." Knable, 238 F.3d at 763 citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c). "Finally, any party aggrieved by the result of the hearing held before the SLRO may bring suit in the appropriate state court or federal district court." Knable, 238 F.3d at 763 citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2).
A.W. was a fourteen year old female student of Maple Heights High School ("District"). (Tr. Pg. 31). A.W. exhibited behavioral issues from a very young age and she has exhibited poor behavior while in educational settings. (Tr. 34-36). Throughout her educational career, A.W. has been diagnosed with several educational and behavioral disabilities. (Tr. Pg. 33, 40; 41-43). However, as of the time of the State Level Review Officer's ("SLRO") Hearing, it was agreed that A.W. suffered from emotional disturbance("ED") and was therefore eligible for special education services. (SLRO pg. 9).
A.W. first moved into the District at the end of the 2009-2010 school year.1 (Tr. 69). At this time A.W. was enrolled in private placement at Educational Alternatives (EA). (Tr. 811). EA is a day treatment facility for students with emotional and behavioral concerns. (Tr. 811). EA is a private facility that contracts with school districts, including the District, to provide educational services to students. (Tr. 872).
A.W. began her 2010-2011 school year at EA but expressed an interest in transferring to the regular public school. Throughout this school year, A.W.'s Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") was amended several times, most notably during the Spring of 2011. In March 2011, A.W.'s IEP was amended to provide for the transition to the District middle school. (Tr. 867-868). The District, A.W. and A.W.'s parent agreed to this amendment and eventual transition. The transition started on March 21, 2011 and involved attending the District school in the morning and being transported to EA in the afternoon. (Tr. 95).
At the end of the 2010-2011 school year, A.W.'s parent expressed her desire to wait until the following school year to determine whether A.W. would attend the District full time. (Tr. 100-02). After an IEP meeting without A.W.'s parent, A.W.'s mother filed a complaint with the Ohio Department of Education ("ODE") and the ODE told the District to reconvene the IEP meeting. (Tr. 101-03). At this IEP meeting it was determined that A.W. would remain at EA part-time and would attend the District part of the time.
A.W. began her 2011-2012 school year in partial transition status and made a full transition to the District in October 2011. (Tr. 116). At the District, A.W. was placed in a resource room with therapeutic support pursuant to her February 2011 IEP. During the Fall of 2011, A.W. began exhibiting behavioral problems. (Tr. 1736-65). She acquired seven behavioral write-ups from October 21, 2011 to December 14, 2011. Additionally, A.W. was suspended for brief periods on three occasions during this time frame for behavior related outbursts. (P.Ex. 23). A behavior intervention plan ("BIP") was prepared for A.W. to help alleviate these behaviors. (Tr. 1760).
A.W.'s IEP team reconvened in February 2012 and prepared A.W.'s new IEP. (Tr. 125). A.W.'s IEP allowed her to move out of the resource room for science class and her specials (art, music and gym). ). It
In the summer of 2012, the District met to discuss A.W.'s evaluation team report ("ETR") that was conducted throughout the summer. During a three hour meeting, the team reviewed A.W.'s ETR findings and had an extensive discussion regarding her eligibility determination. The team concluded that A.W.'s behaviors did not constitute ED under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Rather, they concluded that her behaviors fell under social maladjustment. Due to this finding, the ETR team determined that A.W. was no longer qualified as a child with a disability and was thus no longer eligible for special education services. A.W.'s mother disagreed with this finding and filed a Due Process Complaint on August 24, 2012. (Tr. 129). While this complaint was going through the administrative process, the District continued to provide A.W. with special education services.
A.W. continued to exhibit poor behavior while in the resource room including: impulsivity, excessive talking, problems interacting with peers, verbal aggression, bouts of agitation, defiance, arguing with peers and leaving the class without permission. (Tr. 657-58). After this continued for several weeks, A.W.'s resource room teacher no longer agreed that A.W. did not qualify for special education services. (Tr. 670-72). A.W.'s resource room teacher began charting A.W.'s behavior to document her concerns.
On October 2, 2012, the District discovered that A.W. possessed marijuana on school grounds in violation of the school's Code of Conduct. (P.Ex. 31; 35). A.W. was immediately suspended for ten days. On October 16, 2012, a manifestation determination review ("MDR") meeting was convened in order to determine whether A.W.'s disabilities had a direct and substantial relationship to the drug possession. (Tr. 682-83). While the District concluded that the drug possession was not a manifestation of A.W.'s disability, the IHO concluded that A.W.'s parents proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the drug possession was a manifestation of A.W.'s disability. The SLRO affirmed the IHO's determination that A.W.'s drug possession was a manifestation of A.W.'s disability.
During A.W.'s expulsion she received one-on-one small group instruction at the Maple Heights Library. (Tr. 684-85). During this time, A.W. generally exhibited good behavior and stayed on task. (Tr. 1873; 1889-1890).
On December 14, 2012, A.W.'s mother and the District entered into a SettlementAgreement resolving the issues of the Due Process Complaint filed in August 2012. (Tr. 165, 169). The Settlement Agreement stated that A.W.'s qualifying disability was Emotional Disturbance. (Tr. 171). Further, it stated that A.W. would be placed in an age-appropriate small group resource room with participation in science, art, music and physical education classes with mainstreamed students. Additionally, the agreement stated that A.W. would receive twenty-four hours of one-on-one services, two hours in length per-day. Finally, the Settlement Agreement expressly resolved all outstanding claims asserted in the August 2012 Complaint, but did not encompass any claims that may have arisen since the filing of the Complaint on that date.
In January 2013, A.W. returned to the District and was in Mr. Green's resource room. She continued to receive services pursuant to her IEP. Between January 22, 2013 and February 21, 2013, the District asked Dr. Swartz, a behavioral specialist, to prepare a functional behavior assessment ("FBA") and a behavior intervention plan ("BIP") for the impending IEP meeting at the school.
On February 21, 2013, A.W. was caught stealing another student's iPod and was subsequently suspended. On March 4, 2013, the school held an MDR meeting in order to determine whether A.W. disability's had a direct and substantial relationship to the iPod theft. While the District determined that the iPod theft was not a manifestation of A.W.'s disability, the IHO held that A.W.'s parents proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the iPod theft was a manifestation of A.W.'s disability. Additionally, the SLRO affirmed the IHO findings.
The December 2012 Settlement Agreement provided that the current IEP would be extended past its expiration time of January 2013 and that the parties could agree to any necessary extensions. However, this did not happen. (Tr. 1706). Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provided that an IEP meeting would occur by February 12, 2013, however, this did not occur either. It was not until March 11, 2013,...
To continue reading
Request your trial