Beth B. v. University District 65: IDEA and LRE Case Analysis

Introduction and Background

This paper examines the administrative hearing case of Beth B. v. University District 65, an action brought by the parents of a twelve-year-old student — referred to here as "the Student" — on behalf of their daughter. The case centers on a dispute over the appropriate educational placement for the Student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and raises significant questions about the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate and the standard for a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Student Profile and Disputed Placement

The Student has Rett Syndrome, a condition that apparently affects only female children. Rett Syndrome is a form of autistic disorder that leads to severe disabilities in the areas of motor functioning, communication, and cognition. The Student is confined to a wheelchair and cannot speak, but communicates through the use of computer assistive technology that presents her with choices in the form of pictures, which she selects by focusing her eye gaze. She is also able to activate a switch with her hands to make choices. In addition, the Student has scoliosis and wears a back brace.

The Student's parents, private therapists, and educators all agree that her motor skills are within the range of a five- to seven-month-old. A major controversy in this case involves her communication and cognitive skills. The educators estimate her abilities to be at the twelve- to twenty-month level, while her parents and therapists place them considerably higher. One of her therapists estimates her abilities in these areas to be close to those of a four- to six-year-old. Because of the Student's disabilities, it is not feasible to administer standardized tests to determine her communication and cognitive levels.

At the age of two, in 1990, the Student began to receive educational services from the North Suburban Special Education District — also known as the Co-op — to which University District 65 belongs. The Student participated in the program with a one-on-one aide and also received physical, occupational, and speech therapy. At the parents' urging, the University District agreed to place the Student in regular kindergarten, first, and second grade. During second grade, the Co-op added the services of an inclusion facilitator.

In 1997, the University District indicated to the parents that it believed the Student would be better served by placement in an Educational Life Skills (ELS) program. The parents disagreed, wanting her to remain in a regular education classroom. Unable to resolve the dispute, the case was referred to a Hearing Officer, who in August 1997 issued a stay-put ruling ordering that the Student's placement remain as it was. The University District interpreted this to mean keeping the Student in second grade, which the parents disputed. The Hearing Officer upheld the parents' position, and the Student has since progressed to fifth grade.

Legal Framework Under IDEA and Section 504

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was most recently amended in 1997 and requires that schools provide necessary learning aids, testing modifications, and other educational accommodations to children with learning disabilities. Children whose learning is hampered by physical or other psychological disabilities may also qualify for accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Under these laws, a child is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) — an individualized educational program designed to meet the child's unique needs and from which the child receives an educational benefit.

All qualified persons with disabilities within the jurisdiction of a school district are entitled to FAPE. The regulation defines a person with a disability as any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. For elementary and secondary education programs, a qualified person with a disability is one who is of an age during which the state is required by law to provide such services, or for whom the state is required to provide FAPE under IDEA. In general, all school-age children with disabilities are entitled to FAPE.

An appropriate education may take different forms. It could consist of education in regular classes, education in regular classes with supplementary services, or special education and related services in separate classrooms for all or portions of the school day. Special education may include specially designed instruction in classrooms, at home, or in private or public institutions, and may be accompanied by related services such as speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy, psychological counseling, and medical diagnostic services necessary to the child's education.

To be appropriate, educational programs for students with disabilities must be designed to meet their individual needs to the same extent that the needs of non-disabled students are met. One mechanism for ensuring this is the development of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student with a disability. IEPs are required for students participating in special education programs under IDEA. The quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities must equal that provided to non-disabled students, including teacher certification standards, facilities, and available materials and equipment.

Students with disabilities may not be excluded from nonacademic services and extracurricular activities on the basis of disability. They must be given an equal opportunity to participate in physical education, recreational athletics, transportation, health services, recreational activities, school-sponsored clubs, referrals to assistance agencies, and student employment.

The Rowley Standard and Appropriate Education

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court established the controlling legal standard in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley. That decision created a two-part test for determining whether a school district has met IDEA's requirement to provide a special needs student with a free appropriate public education. First, the school district must comply with the procedures set forth in the act. Second, the educational program developed through those procedures must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit.

Regarding what constitutes "educational benefit," the Court in Rowley held that Congress did not impose any standard greater "than would be necessary to make such access meaningful." The intent of IDEA was to provide equal access to public education by opening the door to students with disabilities, rather than guaranteeing any particular outcome. Accordingly, an appropriate education need not maximize a student's potential; it must only provide a meaningful benefit.

The parents requested that the Hearing Officer find that the University District had failed to provide adequate training or support for the Student and the staff working with her, and that it had failed to properly monitor the Student's progress in ways that would allow accurate judgments about her development. Central to the action was the request that the regular education junior high school the Student would attend — if not placed in the ELS program — be recognized as the least restrictive environment for the Student. The parents maintained that the ELS program was overly restrictive, that its peer group and teaching methods were not appropriate for the Student, and that it would also require a physically demanding bus ride of 30 to 45 minutes each way.

Conclusion

The Hearing Officer concluded that the ELS program designed by the University District was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to the Student, and that the decisions made by the district in arriving at this program reflected a careful and competent analysis including reasonable efforts to obtain the information necessary to develop the program. Accordingly, the parents' requested relief was denied, and the University District's proposed placement was upheld as consistent with IDEA's requirements for a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.