Porter v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 10 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1–12–2891.,1–12–2891.
• Parties: Kecia PORTER, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Stacey Stutzman, as Hearing Officer for the Illinois State Board of Education, and Barbara Byrd–Bennett, as Superintendent for City of Chicago School District 299, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2014 IL App (1st) 122891

6 N.E.3d 424

379 Ill.Dec. 347

Kecia PORTER, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.The ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Stacey Stutzman, as Hearing Officer for the Illinois State Board of Education, and Barbara Byrd–Bennett, as Superintendent for City of Chicago School District 299, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 1–12–2891.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Feb. 10, 2014.

Kecia Porter, Chicago, appellant pro se.

James L. Bebly, Lee Ann Lowder, Chicago Board of Education, Chicago, for appellees.

OPINION

Presiding Justice CONNORS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff sought administrative review of an adverse decision of the Illinois State Board of Education regarding accommodations made for her daughter's learning disability. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court applied the wrong law in determining whether her daughter received an appropriate education, that it abused its discretion in finding that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated, and that the court made prejudicial comments about her during the proceedings. She also contends that the underlying administrative decision was arbitrary. For the following reasons, we confirm the administrative decision.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff Kecia Porter challenges the special education accommodations provided to her daughter, K.P., who is an elementary school student in Chicago Public School District 299 (District). In 2008, K.P. was initially evaluated by the District and deemed eligible for an individualized education plan (IEP) at her school to accommodate her learning disabilities. In May of 2010, Porter commissioned a private psychological evaluation from a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) because she believed that the District terminated services it was providing K.P. without properly assessing whether those services were still warranted. Pursuant to that evaluation, K.P. received a diagnosis of “Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder—Combined Type” (ADHD) in addition to reading, math, and verbal learning disabilities. Among other things, the examiner recommended one-on-one tutoring, the use of assistive technology, and the provision of extra time to take tests.

¶ 4 Porter filed a request for an impartial due process hearing with the Illinois State Board of Education (Board) pursuant to section 14–8.02a of the Illinois School Code (Code) (105 ILCS 5/14–8.02a (West 2010)) seeking to include the UIC examiner's recommendations in K.P.'s existing IEP. The District issued a modified IEP in February of 2011. Porter and District representatives then met to review that IEP. According to the District, Porter and the District discussed each of Porter's concerns. However, Porter ultimately rejected all of the proposed changes on the IEP and stated that she intended to have K.P. placed in a private therapeutic day school at public expense. In the meantime, K.P. was transferred to a different school within the District. She also began private tutoring using the Wilson Reading System, a multisensory reading instruction system.

¶ 5 On April 7, 2011, Porter again sought an impartial due process hearing, which is the subject of this appeal. In this application, she alleged more than a dozen reasons for challenging the IEP, including that it: failed to provide assistive technology services, failed to provide appropriate modifications and accommodations, failed to identify strategies that will be used to achieve goals, failed to identify all of K.P.'s disabilities, failed to state whether K.P. was eligible for services beyond the District's normal school year, and failed to provide private speech and tutoring services. She sought a revision of K.P.'s IEP and placement in a private school at public cost. Defendant Stacey Stutzman was assigned as the Board's hearing officer.

¶ 6 About a month later, the District then issued another modified IEP. It included recommendations for K.P.'s use of assistive technology and extended school year services over the summer. The report also indicated that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2006)), K.P. should be educated in the same classroom as her nondisabled peers unless there is some reason to justify receiving services in a separate setting. The IEP team considered several alternative placements for K.P. with varying degrees of interaction with nondisabled students. It considered whether K.P. could attend regular classes full time with supplementary aides and services, but that was deemed insufficient to meet her academic needs. It also considered whether K.P. could spend less than 20% of her school week in a separate class to receive special services, but as a result of a previous due process hearing, that option was deemed inappropriate. It ultimately concluded that K.P. would be best served by attending regular classes and spending 25% of her time, or 430 minutes per week, receiving services in a separate class.

¶ 7 Porter did not seek to add multisensory instruction to K.P.'s IEP at this time. She sought more one-on-one instruction and expressed her belief that K.P. would benefit from placement in a therapeutic day school, the most restrictive type of learning environment aside from a residential placement.

¶ 8 Porter and the District then participated in a prehearing conference related to her due process hearing request. Stutzman prepared a prehearing conference report identifying the sole issue in dispute as “Whether [the] District has failed to place [K.P.] in the least restrictive environment in which she can receive a satisfactory education, which [Porter] contends is a separate school offering multisensory instruction for students with learning disabilities.” Stutzman's report specifically noted that “[Porter] assured [Stutzman] and District counsel that this is the only issue she wishes heard” and that private placement was the only remedy sought. The District responded that because K.P. made academic gains in her current least restrictive environment, placement in a therapeutic day school was not appropriate.

¶ 9 The due process hearing was held in June of 2011 before Stutzman. Porter appeared pro se. She called Debra Gawrys to testify. Gawrys owns Connections Learning Center (Connections), which specializes in tutoring and remediation services for children with learning disabilities. K.P. began private tutoring at Connections in February of 2011. Gawrys evaluated K.P. and determined that she should participate in the Wilson Reading System, which Gawrys described as a 12–step, structured, multisensory approach to teaching reading. Gawrys testified that K.P. has benefitted from the small group setting as well as the Wilson program itself.

¶ 10 Gawrys testified that the goals and accommodations contained in the May 2011 IEP did not adequately address K.P.'s learning disability, specifically, her dyslexia. She stated that the IEP focused on K.P.'s reading comprehension, but Gawrys believed that K.P.'s issues involved her ability to read. Gawrys also testified that K.P.'s difficulty with math was also related to her dyslexia. She stated that K.P. is two grade levels behind in reading and math, but that if K.P. finished the Wilson program, she would be able to read at grade level. She also stated that a normal classroom setting is not helpful for K.P. because it is not possible to provide the accommodations and modifications contained in the IEP in a large classroom setting.

¶ 11 Porter then testified by offering a narrative explanation of the documents she submitted. She testified that the May 2011 IEP contained many “contradictions” regarding K.P.'s abilities and the stated goals. Stutzman noted that Porter had not “made any of that an issue in this case. [Porter] made it very clear that the issue for [Stutzman] to decide was where [K.P.] should be placed.” Porter also read from a letter she received from UIC that she received about two weeks before the hearing, which stated that the “Wilson Reading System would be an effective method for teaching [K.P.] to read. * * * Their intensive instruction in small group settings seems well-fitted to address K.P.'s presenting learning deficits.”

¶ 12 Stutzman also asked Porter whether K.P. was taking any medication for her ADHD symptoms. Porter testified that K.P. took medication for two months, but had not been taking any medication in the past six months.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, Porter admitted that the multisensory learning program, specifically the Wilson program, was not addressed in the May 2011 IEP. She also admitted that she did not provide the District with any documentation about the Wilson program or K.P.'s tutoring with Gawrys before the IEP meeting. However, she stated that she discussed the Wilson program with K.P.'s teachers. She also did not present UIC's letter to the District before the hearing.

¶ 14 The District called K.P.'s special education teacher, Claire Blouin, to testify. She testified at length about the different methods used to teach K.P. She also discussed K.P.'s test scores. She indicated that K.P. has improved in math, but she still maintained a deficit in her reading ability. Blouin testified that she believed K.P. could benefit from multisensory instruction, including the Wilson method.

¶ 15 The District also called Ethel Barker to testify. As the special projects manager for the District, Barker manages multisensory instruction programs. She stated that the District provided multisensory instruction and the Wilson method at a different District school, to which K.P. could be transferred. She also stated that K.P.'s current special education teachers could be trained in the Wilson method and administer that program to her at her current school. She testified that the multisensory instruction program would be conducted in a separate classroom from her general education courses. S...