A.K. Ex Rel. J.K. v. Alexandria City School Board

Fourth Circuit

A.K. Ex Rel. J.K. v. Alexandria City School Board

497 F.3d 409, 2007 WL 2181512

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 2007

Docket06-1130, 1:05-CV-00229-GBL

StatusPublished

This text of 497 F.3d 409 (A.K. Ex Rel. J.K. v. Alexandria City School Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.K. Ex Rel. J.K. v. Alexandria City School Board, 497 F.3d 409, 2007 WL 2181512 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

GREGORY, Circuit Judge,

dissenting from the denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc.

Because schools and parents in this circuit would benefit greatly from consideration by the whole court of the questions this case presents, I dissent from my colleagues’ decision not to rehear this case en banc. In particular, it would be wise for us to articulate a standard for differentiating substantive and procedural requirements of the IDEA.

The panel majority concluded that the school district’s failure to identify on A.K.’s IEP an anticipated location at which A.K. would be educated constituted a violation of the substantive requirements of the IDEA. The school district did violate the IDEA — the law requires that an IEP identify the anticipated frequency, duration, and location for the provision of educational services, and A.K.’s IEP specifies no location — but I do not see the violation as a deficiency in the educational program the school district was offering, as the majority does. The school district’s mistake is one that had no effect upon the education A.K. would receive. This, to me, is evidence that the error is not a substantive one.

Under our present jurisprudence, public school districts are vulnerable to those who could use the unclear state of the law to their advantage. In particular I worry that public schools could be liable for large *410 sums because of errors that, as here, have no adverse impact on the quality of the educational program made available to the student. Regrettably, our public schools today face greater social challenges than before with ever shrinking financial resources; and we should be careful not to expose them to a greater burden than Congress intended them to bear.

The IDEA was written to ensure the fair treatment of disabled students by the educational system, a noble goal that is worthy of our vigilance, but not to punish a school district’s good faith efforts to comply with the statute, even if those efforts sometimes entail technical but harmless errors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GREGORY, Circuit Judge,

dissenting from the denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc.

Because schools and parents in this circuit would benefit greatly from consideration by the whole court of the questions this case presents, I dissent from my colleagues’ decision not to rehear this case en banc. In particular, it would be wise for us to articulate a standard for differentiating substantive and procedural requirements of the IDEA.

The panel majority concluded that the school district’s failure to identify on A.K.’s IEP an anticipated location at which A.K. would be educated constituted a violation of the substantive requirements of the IDEA. The school district did violate the IDEA — the law requires that an IEP identify the anticipated frequency, duration, and location for the provision of educational services, and A.K.’s IEP specifies no location — but I do not see the violation as a deficiency in the educational program the school district was offering, as the majority does. The school district’s mistake is one that had no effect upon the education A.K. would receive. This, to me, is evidence that the error is not a substantive one.

Under our present jurisprudence, public school districts are vulnerable to those who could use the unclear state of the law to their advantage. In particular I worry that public schools could be liable for large *410 sums because of errors that, as here, have no adverse impact on the quality of the educational program made available to the student. Regrettably, our public schools today face greater social challenges than before with ever shrinking financial resources; and we should be careful not to expose them to a greater burden than Congress intended them to bear.

The IDEA was written to ensure the fair treatment of disabled students by the educational system, a noble goal that is worthy of our vigilance, but not to punish a school district’s good faith efforts to comply with the statute, even if those efforts sometimes entail technical but harmless errors.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 F.3d 409, 2007 WL 2181512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ak-ex-rel-jk-v-alexandria-city-school-board-ca4-2007.