North Kitsap School Dist. v. K.W.
| Decision Date | 15 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 32305-2-II.,32305-2-II. |
| Citation | 123 P.3d 469,130 Wn. App. 347 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent, v. K.W., a minor child by and through C.W. and G.W., his grandparents and legal guardians, Appellants. |
Daniel C. Montopoli, William A. Coats, Attorneys at Law, Tacoma, WA, for Respondent.
Randal Bruce Brown, Randal Brown Law Office, Covington, WA, for Appellant.
¶ 1 G.W. and C.W. (Grandparents), the legal guardians of K.W., a minor disabled student, sought an impartial due process hearing under 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-91, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act). An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that (1) the North Kitsap School District (District) failed to provide K.W. the "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) that he was entitled to under the Act for two academic years; and (2) the District must reimburse the Grandparents for two academic years of K.W.'s education, which included K.W.'s placement for one academic year at a private school (Glen Eden), for special education students. The District sought superior court review, and the trial court reversed the ALJ on all of these issues.
¶ 2 The Grandparents appeal, arguing that the trial court's reversal of the ALJ's decision failed to apply the proper standard of review and give appropriate deference to the ALJ. At trial the Grandparents also moved for a "stay put" order under the Act, which it granted. The District argues on appeal that the trial court erred in issuing the "stay put" order that has allowed K.W. to continue attending the private special education school during the pendency of our review.
¶ 3 We previously issued an opinion in which we reversed the trial court in part and affirmed the trial court in part. Before that previous opinion was published, both parties moved for reconsideration. We now grant reconsideration of portions of our former opinion, withdraw our former opinion and (1) affirm the trial court's finding that the District provided K.W. a FAPE for the 2001-2002 school year; (2) reverse the trial court's finding that the District provided a FAPE for the 2002-2003 school year; (3) hold that K.W.'s private placement at Glen Eden was appropriate for the 2003-2004 school year and affirm the trial court's "stay put" order; and (4) based on the time frame and issues presented in this appeal, we hold that the Grandparents are entitled to reimbursement for K.W.'s placement at Glen Eden during the on-going litigation relating to K.W.'s appropriate educational placement.
¶ 4 K.W. is a disabled child who resides in the North Kitsap School District. He suffers from various disabilities, including autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and other behavioral and cognitive disabilities. Consequently, K.W. is entitled to a free appropriate public education under IDEA within the District. He attended District schools during his kindergarten, first, second, and third grades. K.W.'s Grandparents are his guardians and have always advocated for his education.
¶ 5 K.W. attended kindergarten at a public school for developmentally delayed students. In first grade, he attended public school half-time for most of the year and, by the end of the year, he attended public school two-thirds of the regularly scheduled time. He repeated first grade in 2000-2001 and attended public school full-time but spent half the day in a regular classroom and remaining time in a special education room called the Resource Room 2 program. These facts are undisputed.
¶ 6 In June 2001, the summer before the 2001-2002 school year, K.W.'s special education/IEP (Individualized Education Program) team recommended his assignment to the District's Summit Program. At the time, the Summit Program was in the development stage and was scheduled to begin in the 2001-2002 school year. This was a self-contained program that did not involve non-disabled students and was designed for students with behavioral problems.
¶ 7 The Grandparents and K.W.'s teacher attended the mandatory IEP meeting, as did other special education professionals. A Summit Program teacher did not attend this meeting.
¶ 8 In September 2001, K.W.'s Grandmother observed K.W. in the Summit program and met his teacher. The Summit Program had eight disabled students. In October 2001, K.W.'s final IEP was due; however the Grandparents notified the District that they were in the process of obtaining a complete medical evaluation of K.W. to assist with the IEP.
¶ 9 In December 2001, the IEP team met without the Grandparents' medical evaluation to avoid further delay. K.W.'s Grandmother attended the IEP meeting and the IEP team completed an educational plan for K.W. The IEP team recommended specific modifications to the Summit Program to address K.W.'s unique special education needs. K.W. completed the school year at the Summit Program.
¶ 10 K.W.'s IEP team met again in June 2002, for the mandated periodic review of his special education program for the upcoming 2002-2003 academic year. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4). They determined that K.W. had made certain academic and behavioral progress in the Summit Program during the past year but that unmet social goals remained. The District recommended that K.W. be removed from the Summit Program out of concern for his safety, primarily because K.W.'s behavior could provoke other students to act violently toward him. The IEP team also agreed that (1) a neuropsychological medical evaluation was appropriate; and (2) that the IEP team would reconvene in August 2002, to complete K.W.'s special education program for the 2002-2003 academic year.
¶ 11 But the District did not hold a meeting in August. Thus, when the school year began, the Grandparents did not know where K.W. was expected to attend school. It is disputed whether the Grandparents first contacted the District or the District contacted them when K.W. did not enroll in the fall. But after contact was made, the District informed the Grandparents that K.W. would be placed in the Summit Program again. Although the IEP team had recently found this program inappropriate for K.W.'s special education needs, the District stated that the program was now acceptable because only two students were enrolled and there was a high degree of supervision, mitigating the IEP team's safety concerns. No IEP team meeting occurred to discuss this decision.
¶ 12 The Grandparents chose not to return K.W. to the Summit Program. In December 2002, the Grandparents requested an impartial due process hearing under 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(6) of the Act.
¶ 13 The District met with the Grandparents in February 2003. This was the first time that the District met with them since the IEP team meeting in June 2002. The District provided the Grandparents with two options for K.W.'s special education: (1) the Summit Program; or (2) Resource Room 3.1 After visiting these programs, the Grandparents declined the District's offer.
¶ 14 A neurological evaluation was available by this time; but it did not include a complete analysis and it did not recommend a specific special education program appropriate to K.W.'s disabilities. At oral argument we learned that the District has not had an IEP meeting regarding K.W.'s special education since June 2002.
¶ 15 An ALJ associated with the Office of Administrate Hearings for the Superintendent for Public Instruction provided a due process hearing in April 2003. After two days of testimony,2 the ALJ found that (1) the District failed to provide K.W. with a FAPE as required under the Act for both the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 school years; and (2) that the Grandparents were entitled to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) for a neuropsychological examination at public expense.
¶ 16 Because the District failed to provide a FAPE for K.W., the ALJ heard testimony about Glen Eden Institute, a private special education school located in Kitsap County. The ALJ concluded that it was an appropriate placement for K.W. during the 2003-2004 school year and ordered that K.W. attend it at public expense and that "[t]he District shall follow the requirements of the IDEA with regard to the Student's placement at Glen Eden." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 33.
¶ 17 The ALJ also determined that the Grandparents were entitled to an additional year of compensatory education at an institution to be determined at a later date. Thus, the ALJ ordered "one additional year of compensatory education to be determined by the IEP team prior to the end of the Student's year at Glen Eden." CP at 33.
¶ 18 The District moved for reconsideration, which the ALJ denied.
¶ 19 The District filed an aggrieved party's civil action under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2) seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision. The Grandparents moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Following a hearing in which the trial court considered the District's submission of portions of depositions of Glen Eden's director and one of K.W.'s teachers for the 2003-2004 school year, the trial court issued a memorandum opinion reversing the ALJ's decision, except for the Grandparents' entitlement to an IEE. The District does not appeal the trial court's IEE ruling; but at oral argument we were informed that the IEE had not yet been completed.
¶ 20 The Grandparents filed a notice of appeal and requested that the trial court order that Glen Eden be the "stay put" placement while this matter was on appeal pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). After a hearing, the trial court granted the Grandparents' request. The District then brought a motion in this court to set aside the order. We treated the District's motion as a RAP 8.1(h) motion under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist.
...(6th Cir.1997) (table), 1997 WL 468326, at *6 (Nos. 96–5066, 5178) (Aug. 12, 1997) (following Andersen ); N. Kitsap Sch. Dist. v. K.W., 130 Wash.App. 347, 123 P.3d 469, 483 (2005) (holding that stay-put period extends “throughout the entire process, including any appeals”). Having now consi......
-
A.D. ex rel. L.D. v. Sumner School Dist.
...201, 228, 5 P.3d 691 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920, 121 S.Ct. 1356, 149 L.Ed.2d 286 (2001); see also N. Kitsap Sch. Dist. v. K.W., 130 Wash. App. 347, 358, 123 P.3d 469 (2005), review denied, 157 Wash.2d 1018, 142 P.3d 607 ¶ 14 A FAPE under the IDEA must be "in conformity with the indi......
-
M.R. ex rel. E.R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist., CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2235
...Appx. 58, 62 (3d Cir. 2010); Ringwood Bd. of Educ. v. K.H.J., 469 F. Supp. 2d 267, 270 (D.N.J. 2006) (citing N. Kitsap Sch. Dist. v. K.W., 123 P.3d 469, 482 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)), and to "strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students......
-
Simmons v. State
...but the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ " North Kitsap Sch. Dist. v. K.W. , 130 Wash. App. 347, 360, 123 P.3d 469 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Amanda J. v. Clark County Sch. Dist. , 267 F.3d 877, 887 (9th ......