RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0302P (6th Cir.) Hunt, et al. File Name: 04a0302p.06 _________________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS COUNSEL FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ARGUED: Richard G. Meyer, DETERS, BENZINGER & _________________ LAVELLE, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Randy J. Blankenship, ROBBINS, KELLY, PATTERSON & KENTON COUNTY SCHOOL X TUCKER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: DISTRICT, - Richard G. Meyer, DETERS, BENZINGER & LAVELLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, - Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Randy J. Blankenship, - Nos. 02-6027/6028 ROBBINS, KELLY, PATTERSON & TUCKER, Cincinnati, - Ohio, for Appellees. v. > , _________________ - JEFFREY HUNT and LYNN - OPINION HUNT , - _________________ Defendants-Appellees. - - KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. In this Individuals with N Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) case, Plaintiff Kenton Appeal from the United States District Court School District (“District”) appeals the order from the district for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington. court that upheld the decision by the Kentucky Exceptional Nos. 01-00138; 01-00139—William O. Bertelsman, Children Appeals Board (“ECAB”) requiring the District to District Judge. reimburse Jason Hunt’s parents for expenses relating to (1) his summer placement at two different programs in 1997 and Argued: March 18, 2004 1998; and (2) his year-long placement at Chileda Rehabilitation Institute during 1999-2000. The district court Decided and Filed: September 9, 2004 agreed with the ECAB that the District failed to provide Jason Hunt with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) Before: KENNEDY, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit during all years in question and that the reimbursement was, Judges. therefore, required. On this appeal, the District argues that the district court and the ECAB improperly decided issues that were not raised before the hearing officer, who found in favor of the District. We reverse because neither the ECAB nor the district court conducted a full factual inquiry into (1) whether Jason Hunt needed extended school year (“ESY”) services to justify summer programs in 1997 and 1998; (2) whether Jason’s individualized education program (“IEP”)
1 Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 3 4 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
denied him FAPE for the 1999-2000 school year, warranting 1992-1995.1 Julie Tyner, the student’s teacher and the a private placement; (3) whether the District, with additional principal of Redwood for 14 years, testified that Redwood is evidence presented in the district court, established that the a recreational program that uses no IEP’s for students, nor do IEP for 1999-2000 was not deficient; and (4) whether that they have behavior management plans. evidence should have been presented in earlier proceedings before the hearing officer and the ECAB. Jason began the 1996-97 school year at White’s Tower Elementary (“White”). His IEP, dated October 2, 1996, BACKGROUND included the following goals: (1) to improve intelligibility through correct speech sound production; (2) to improve This case involves a reimbursement claim under the IDEA. expressive language skills; (3) to improve personal skills Parents of Jason Hunt filed a claim seeking reimbursement for (greeting another person); (4) to improve reading expenses related to (1) their decision to place Jason in a comprehension skills; (5) to improve cutting skills; (6) to behavior management program at Bancroft Rehabilitation improve eating habits; (7) to improve writing skills; and (8) Center in New Jersey (“Bancroft”) for 12 weeks in the spring to improve math skills (time and money). Related services and summer of 1997, (2) their decision to place Jason in a included occupational therapy (“OT”) (both direct services summer program at Chileda Rehabilitation Institute in and consultation), speech therapy, and daily transportation. LaCrosse, Wisconsin (“Chileda”), and (3) their decision to Mrs. Hunt signed the Conference Summary (containing place Jason at Chileda from March 1999 through August minutes of the meeting) and indicated that Parent’s Rights 2000. were explained and a copy was given to her. On April 24, 1997, an Admission and Release Committee (“ARC”) Jason Hunt was born in Houston, Texas on July 27, 1988. meeting was held at parents’ request “to discuss OT and He has been diagnosed as having (1) double spastic progress.” Apparently, Mr. and Mrs. Hunt felt that their son hemiplegic cerebral palsy with greater right sided was regressing in fine motor skills and behavior due to lack involvement and (2) delayed cognitive and communication of direct OT services, despite the implementation of the IEP. development. As a result, it was recommended that Jason be They also had concerns about toilet training and behavior. As enrolled in an integrated developmental preschool program a result of the meeting, ARC changed OT to direct service with a strong language component. Jason enrolled in and added toilet training to the IEP for the 1997-98 school preschool in the Kenton County School District on year. To facilitate the accomplishment of toilet training, it August 26, 1992. Since behavior was a continuing issue for was decided that Jason’s parents would meet with Dr. Perkins Jason, behavior plans were developed and implemented in 1993, 1994, and 1995. His toileting needs were addressed in an IEP for the 1993-94 school year. The District determined 1 The due process hearing officer noted that “[t]estimony was given that he was a student with disability, and that he qualified to that the student was placed for participation in a recreational program that receive a free appropriate public education. On October 26, the parents felt provided structure and socialization for the student in the 1992, an individualized education plan was developed for summers of 1994, 1995, 1996.” J.A. at 26. The hearing officer Jason. Mr. and Mrs. Hunt placed Jason at the Redwood discounted the inco nsistency, stating that “[r]egardless o f spec ific dates Rehabilitation Center (“Redwood”) during the summers of of attendance, Redwood was a full day program, and the student placed there by his parents, attended from two to five days a week for three weeks each year in attendance.” Id. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 5 6 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
to discuss the possibility of funding for the Bancroft discuss behavior issues. The summary noted that the program.2 A parent was present at this meeting and signed Bancroft program was being used by the school personnel. the Conference summary. However, it took three adults to carry out all the necessary procedures and Jason would be very angry after they were Jason was placed by his parents at Bancroft in the done. It also noted that he seemed to have a very difficult Neurobehavioral Stabilization Unit from April 28, 1997 until time in the inclusionary classroom setting, and appeared to be July 20, 1997. Upon his return home, two of his teachers over-stimulated by the regular classroom. On the other hand, from White, Janet Fay and Mike Burdge were trained in the the summary noted that there were notable improvements in implementation of the program by a Bancroft representative. language skills, self-help skills, hand-writing, and toilet- Upon completion of training they seemed knowledgeable and training. It was decided at the meeting to “[d]evelop new IEP enthusiastic about the treatment plans, and felt the school within self-contained sp[ecial] ed[ucation] setting; use three would be able to successfully implement all aspects of the step approach to behavior compliance (Bancroft) without treatment. Gil Damon, behavioral team leader from Bancroft, visual screening.”3 Jason’s mother was present and signed did testify that he expected “in an unstructured environment the Conference Summary report. without any treatment, that Jason’s rates would go back to baseline” and that they “did not replicate what his academic On March 11, 1998, an ARC was convened to review schedule would be in the school district.” J.A. at 28. Jason’s program. It was decided that placement would continue as Multiple Disabilities with assistive technology Jason continued his education at White during the 1997-98 adaptations. Both parents attended this meeting and agreed year. Janet Fay and Mike Burdge were his teachers. A new that the transition to the regular classroom should begin, that IEP was developed on October 13, 1997 for the upcoming Jason had “improved behaviorally,” and that he “is doing well school year. It included the following goals: (1) improving in reading and spelling.” One of the parents signed the math skills with coins and time; (2) improving social skills by Conference Summary. An ARC was convened on March 26, decreasing tantruming; (3) improving vocational functioning 1998, to discuss behavior issues. The IEP was reviewed on by buttoning and snapping; (4) improving written expression that date and it was decided that the school would by writing legibly; (5) improving reading and comprehension; “temporarily reduce math time and allow medication changes (6) improving expressive language skills; and (7) improving to take effect.” His parents were present and signed the expressive communication by using correct speech sound Conference Summary. Another ARC was convened on production. Related services included speech therapy of sixty June 1, 1998, to discuss re-evaluation results. As an minutes a week, occupational therapy in two 30-minute explanation for rejecting the ESY option, the following sessions a week, and daily transportation services. The Conference Summary, dated October 13, 1997, indicated that a meeting was called to review the current program and 3 Gil Damon, a former behavioral team leader at Bancroft testified at the Due Process Hearing that visual screening involved “crossing Jason’s hands, crossing Jaso n’s arms and co ntrolling, gaining contro l of his arms 2 with one of your arms and using your other hand to place over his eyes, Bancroft claimed that it could toilet train Jason, reduce his behaviors putting an index finger on the brow so as not to cause any injury to the by 80% , and make him drug-free (Jason was taking Ritalin) as part of its eye but basically to restrict Jason’s sight.” Damon Dep. at 32, J.A. at twelve-week one-on-one program. 1721. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 7 8 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
statement was written: “No data to support this.”4 Other medication adderol. Touching and spitting behaviors are comments were: “His mother and teacher reported primary behavior concerns. Using redirection seems to improvements in bathroom skills. Jason will attend summer work best. The student is interacting with peers 59% of school at Chileda . . .” Mrs. Hunt testified that the “ . . . the time each day. The student does not qualify for [b]ehavior was an on-going problem and I felt like during the extended school year services. Parents expressed their summer if he didn’t have a highly structured program where feelings that we don’t really have sufficient data to we worked on his behavior as well as his social interaction qualify him because they personally fund his summer that he would not do very well at the beginning of the school, programs. . . Discussion initiated by Mr. Burdge the following school year.” concerning the need for consultative assistance on the student. Mrs. Tyner suggested that Mr. Burdge contact Jason attended the summer program at Chileda from Dr. Lentz to see if he will enter into a limited contract for June 15 until August 19, 1998. Chileda teacher, Chris seeing the student and working without staff. Schalow, prepared a “Music Summary”; it was noted that Mr. Burdge will explore this option with help from “social skills have improved as far as the sharing, turn taking, Mr. Hughes and the outcome reported to Mrs. Tyner. being OK with others choosing activities.” Edith McBain, Other contacts will also be explored through the No. KY another Chileda person, noted that Jason “does extremely well Co-op and personal contacts. working independently. He displays several negative behaviors when forced into group participation activities. My An IEP was developed with goals in the following areas: recommendation to ensure success for Jason is to have him (1) improve speech sound production and use; (2) improve work independently or with a very small group setting.” expressive language skills; (3) improve social competence in the area of behavior; (4) improve academic performance in Jason returned to White for the 1998-99 school year. The the areas of reading and writing; and (5) improve academic ARC met on September 16, 1998, to conduct an annual performance in the area of math (money and time). The ARC review and develop the IEP. A parent was present and signed chose placement in part-time regular/part-time special the Conference Summary. The Summary noted: education classes. Academic goals and objectives were accepted after a After the September 16, 1998, ARC meeting, Jason began review of last year’s IEP. Mr. Burdge reviewed behavior engaging in forced vomiting, both at home and at school. He data. Transitioning times appear to be better this year. was admitted to Franciscan Hospital for self-induced Teachers and parents report improvement since stopping vomiting, headbanging (at home only), and history of smearing feces. The discharge summary noted that he had recently “returned from a specialized behavior program in 4 Wisconsin which he had attended through the summer On the topic of ESY, the hearing officer listened to testimony from Mike Burdge, Jason’s teacher and State Coordinator for the Kentucky because of his parents’ difficulty managing him. His parents Alternate Portfolio Assessment, Linda Kelly, the school district’s head of were hoping to have him return to that facility from the psychological services, and M r. Hunt, Jason’s father. The hearing officer hospital.” While Jason was in the hospital, another ARC concluded that “there is no evidenc e that his IE P wa s not ap propriate to the needs of the student, or that ESY services were required in order for meeting was held on October 20, 1998, at the parents’ the student to receive a FAPE.” J.A. at 40. request, to discuss behavior concerns and placement. The Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 9 10 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
parents and, it appears for the first time, their attorney was would be a small group setting in which he has performed present. There was no discussion of ESY because of the exceptionally well during two summer private placements; (3) placement issues. Jason’s parents expressed their intent to that when the option of least restrictive environment was place Jason in a residential facility upon his release from the discussed at the March, 1998 ARC meeting, the parents were hospital at public expense. The following were their reasons told that Kenton County did not have, nor have access to, for residential placement: (1) concern that there was a general such a facility, making this option wholly unavailable; and (4) delay in behavioral skills affecting his academic performance that Kenton County had refused “to provide or assist in as compared to summer residential program at Chileda; (2) payment for an extended school year from 1995 to 1998 on residential placement allows for development of adaptive the unsubstantiated premise that there was no apparent behaviors with peers which is not being done effectively at decline in academic performance and behavior, while we and White; (3) concern that other more serious maladaptive some of his educators have observed a substantial increase behaviors might develop if Jason returned to the present after Jason’s return to the Kenton County school system from program at White; (4) the White placement does not include two private placements during the summers of 1997 and a full-time certified staff member through the IEP to work 1998.” one-on-one with the student in an integrated setting. On March 18, 1999, Dr. Perkins responded, in a letter, to On March 8, 1999, Mr. Hunt sent a letter to Dr. Perkins, Mr. Hunt’s accusations. Dr. Perkins expressed the opinion notifying him that Chileda would have an opening for his son that Kenton County had both the ability and the desire to on March 19, 1999 and further expressing his dissatisfaction provide Jason with an appropriate education. He indicated with the White program because “Jason is not receiving an that the White staff cared about Jason and worked very appropriate free education in which his special needs are met. diligently to provide one of the finest Special Education As you are aware his IEP goals are not being met and his programs in the District. He also thought that, with respect to current placement has resulted in maladaptive behavior. We outside placement, the White program was appropriate for are very unhappy in the current placement, which has Jason Jason but that they, nevertheless, recommended that Jason’s in a room with an aide (non-certified staff member).” On parents seek assistance from several agencies, including March 16, 1999, Mr. Hunt sent another letter to Dr. Perkins IMPACT and Comprehensive Care to better meet Jason’s requesting copies of Jason’s records to facilitate his needs. Dr. Perkins concluded: “My information is that you enrollment at Chileda. Additionally, Mr. Hunt requested have chosen not to use these resources, but chose to pursue “Kenton County’s written position on paying the residential placement of your own. I fully realize that you proportionate amount of state and federal funds received by want to provide Jason with the best experiences and support Kenton County to assist in the placement at Chileda in that you can. However, the Kenton County Schools will not accordance with the [IDEA] for education at the Chileda provide financial support for a private program chosen by a Institute.” Mr. Hunt also informed Mr. Perkins that the parent outside of the school setting.” family intended to file a formal complaint with the state Division of Exceptional Children’s services regarding the following items: (1) that Jason should never have been placed in such a highly restrictive environment; (2) that he should have been placed in the least restrictive environment which Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 11 12 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
On March 22, 1999, Jason’s parents enrolled him at insisted that he could offer an appropriate program within the Chileda, where he remained until August 20, 2000.5 In Kenton County system anticipation of Jason’s enrollment as a 6th grader at Turkey Foot Middle School in 2000-01, an ARC meeting was held on On May 23, 2000, a proposed ESY program for the summer May 8, 2000 to develop an IEP. Mrs. Hunt was present at the of 2000 was faxed to the parents. The plan included the meeting. She requested an ESY program for the summer of following features: (1) a certified teacher providing 2000 and an answer by May 15, 2000. Mrs. Hunt was instruction in all goals of the May 8, 2000 IEP for three days informed that since Jason was not a current student, her a week for 8 weeks beginning June 6th and ending July 27th; demands would not be met. She was also told, however, that (2) an experienced instructional assistant; (3) to ease the the central office would make the final decision on this facilitation of behavior and social skills , 3 or 4 other students matter. In response to Mrs. Hunt’s concerns about the use of will be attending the same program and there will always be aides, Gina Tello, a special education teacher who prepared at least one other student in the classroom; (4) speech and the 2000-2001 IEP, told her that her 2.5 aide staff was ample language therapy and OT will be provided in a collaborative to provide the one-on-one assistance situations that may arise, setting, with the time based on the same 3/5 ration as that of and that peer tutors were to be utilized as well. Mrs. Tello IEP goals. On June 1, 2000, the parents received a fax from adopted the Chileda plan as a basis for the IEP with the Chileda questioning the appropriateness of the May 23, 2000 following goals: (1) math skills in the area of money and proposal because (1) it provided no formal programming in time; (2) reading and writing skills in the areas of August, thereby jeopardizing his ability to integrate into the comprehension and letter formation; (3) social skills in the local school in the fall; (2) it provided a 3-day a week, instead areas of interpersonal relations and behavior; and (4) personal of a 5-day a week, summer session; and (3) a 3 or 4 student- safety and self-help in the areas of community and toileting. setting was insufficient because a 5 to 10 student-setting was Another ARC meeting was held on May 18, 2000, to discuss more beneficial. On August 20, 2000, Jason was discharged summer programming with parents present. It was agreed from Chileda. that ESY was needed but no decision on how to accomplish it was reached. Dr. Perkins offered either (1) the possibility On January 9, 2001, a due process hearing was requested of providing a staff member to work with Jason during the on Jason’s behalf. The Division of Exceptional Children summer or (2) programs at Redwood. Jason’s parents were Services received the request on January 11, 2001 and opposed to the Redwood program, insisting that they needed assigned Ms. Patricia M. Guthrie as the Hearing Officer on a program that included behavioral and more academic focus. January 25, 2001. The Hearing Officer ruled in favor of the With respect to OT services, Dr. Perkins discussed a program District on all claims, as follows: (1) the District did not deny at Ft. Wright that would facilitate this. However, the parents FAPE to Jason Hunt for the 1996-97 school year and ESY did not want a part-time program, insisting that only a full- services were not required for Jason to receive a FAPE; (2) time program was consistent with the IEP developed by the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the costs Chileda. The parents suggested the option of attending associated with placement at Bancroft; (3) the District did not Chileda during the summer at public expense. Dr. Perkins deny FAPE to Jason for the 1997-98 school year and ESY services were not required for Jason to receive a FAPE; (4) the District did not deny FAPE to Jason for the 1998-99 5 school year and ESY services were not required for Jason to Eviden tly, Jason’s parents signed a o ne-year contract for services. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 13 14 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
receive a FAPE; (5) the parents were not entitled to 62. The district court affirmed the decision by the Division reimbursement for the costs associated with placement at of Exceptional Children. The current appeal followed. Chileda during the time of March 22, 1999 through the summer of 1999; (6) there was no denial of FAPE with ANALYSIS respect to the District’s failure to develop an IEP for the student for the 1999-2000 school year because Jason was not On this appeal, the District argues that (1) in failing to enrolled in the District; (7) the parents were not entitled to follow the dictates of Sixth Circuit case law for deciding ESY reimbursement for the costs associated with placement at issues, the district court made core findings which are clearly Chileda during the time of March 22, 1999 through the 1999- erroneous and warrant reversal of the judgment for Plaintiffs; 2000 school year; (8) the District did not deny a FAPE to (2) in deciding an issue not even properly before the court, the Jason in the summer of 2000 because it offered an appropriate district court retroactively applied an IDEA regulation ESY program that the parents refused; and (9) the parents governing the contents of a disabled student’s IEP; (3) instead were not entitled to reimbursement for the costs associated of deferring to the ECAB opinion, the district court should with placement at Chileda for the summer of 2000. The have deferred to the opinion of the due process hearing officer parents appealed to the Division of Exceptional Children on on credibility issues; (4) this Court must make its own legal April 23, 2001, which reversed the decision by the hearing determination on whether the District provided a FAPE to officer. Rather than confine its analysis to the issues litigated Jason without ESY or residential placement. by Jason’s parents before the hearing officer, the ECAB concluded that Jason was denied a FAPE for all the years he A. Extended School Year was at White because his IEPs at White were not individualized to his needs, did not contain measurable goals, The district court ordered reimbursement of expenses and did not adequately address his behavior issues. The related to the behavior modification program at Bancroft from District appealed the ECAB ruling to the district court. The April to July of 1997, as well as the Chileda summer school District requested a hearing under 20 U.S.C. programs in 1998 and 2000, because it found that the parents § 1415(i)(2)(b)(ii) to address issues which it asserted were succeeded in proving Jason’s need for ESY services in order raised for the first time by the ECAB. The district court to obtain FAPE. The district court also treated the residential limited the hearing to two hours to be shared equally by the placement at Chileda from March 1999 through May 2000 as parties. The District presented the testimony of Mr. Burdge, an ESY issue, finding credible the parent’s testimony that Jason’s teacher and State Coordinator for the Kentucky Chileda would not accept Jason into a summer program Alternate Portfolio Assessment, to address specifically the without a one-year contract.6 issues of how the IEPs were prepared and how to interpret As this Court had noted on an earlier occasion, “the key them. His testimony was intended to help the court determine substantive term of ‘free appropriate public education’ in the whether the IEPs were based on Jason’s individualized needs, with significant and well-informed input from Mrs. Hunt, whether they contained measurable and measured goals, and whether they were being supplemented by behavior plans and 6 Since the district court conducted a very short hearing on the teaching strategies that were not at the time legally required underlying factual issues and agreed with the ECAB , we review the to be put into the IEPs. J.A. at 211-22, 228-29, 246-47, 258- underlying decision by the ECAB for error. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 15 16 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
Act is defined in ‘general and somewhat imprecise’ terms.” the individual child, that an ESY is necessary to avoid Cordrey v. Euckert, 917 F.2d 1460, 1470 (6th Cir. 1990) something more than adequately recoupable regression. (citing Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 205 (1982)). More specifically, it must be shown that an ESY is According to the Supreme Court, FAPE “consists of access to necessary to permit the child to benefit from his specialized instruction and related services which are instruction. The Third Circuit has persuasively held that individually designed to provide educational benefit to the this benefit must be more than merely de minimis, handicapped child.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201. “More gauged in relation to the child’s potential. specifically, an ESY would be appropriate if it would prevent significant regression of skills or knowledge retained by the Id. at 1472-73 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). child so as to seriously affect his progress toward self- sufficiency.” Cordrey, 917 F.2d at 1470 (citation omitted). As we noted in Cordrey, “whether the IEP provides a ‘free After discussing several suggested methods of proof, the appropriate public education’ is a question subject to review Cordrey court concluded that de novo, while factual determinations by the district court are accorded deference unless clearly erroneous.” Id. at 1474. the regression standard in Rettig and like cases is best The factual questions in this case are, therefore, Jason’s interpreted not to require absolutely that a child “tendency to regress, prior regression, ability to recoup lost demonstrate that he has regressed in the past to the skills, and progress toward his educational goals.” Id. “The serious detriment of his educational progress in order to legal question is whether these facts meet the standard of prove his need for a summer program. Instead, where significant skill losses of such degree and duration so as there is no such empirical data available, need may be seriously to impede his progress toward his educational proven by expert opinion, based upon a professional goals.” Id. individual assessment. With respect to the need for ESY in the 1996-97 school Cordrey, 917 F.2d at 1472. The Cordrey court continued: year, the hearing officer concluded that “[t]he weight of the evidence and testimony clearly provides that the school Beyond the verbal formulation of a substantive standard district provided a FAPE to the student, and that ESY was not for ESY entitlement, the actual dispute in this case seems required in order for the student to receive FAPE.” Although to center on a more fundamental issue: what is the role of the hearing officer acknowledged that “evidence does show an ESY within a “free appropriate public education” regression in skills from time to time, and not always under the Act? . . . The best rule is that which recognizes associated with breaks in instruction, the recoupment time that the school district has no purely custodial duty to required was not shown to be excessive or even consistent.” provide for handicapped children while similar provision Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b), the ECAB conducted an is not made for others. We therefore begin with the impartial review, examined the entire record, and rendered an proposition that providing an ESY is the exception and not the rule under the regulatory scheme. Given those policy considerations, therefore, it is incumbent upon those proposing an ESY for inclusion in the child’s IEP to demonstrate, in a particularized manner relating to Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 17 18 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
independent decision upon completion of the review.7 The address the appropriateness of the summer program at ECAB concluded that the District improperly refused to Chileda; while it may have been of value to the student, there provide ESY for Jason for the summer after the 1996-97 is no evidence that his IEP was not appropriate to the needs school year because (1) the District required complete of the student, or that ESY services were required in order for mastery of skills before a student would qualify for ESY and the student to receive a FAPE.” Once again, the ECAB (2) the District failed to collect (or, in the alternative, it disagreed: destroyed) raw data on regression and recoupment, in violation of several Kentucky statutes. We find that the The parent’s placement at Chileda for the Summer of ECAB erred by ignoring the clear mandate we issued in 1998 was reasonable, given the testimony by LEA [local Cordrey that it is the proponent of ESY that bears the burden educational agency’s] employees that behavioral issues of proof either through the use of data or the use of expert adversely affected the student’s ability to participate in testimony. Although we agree with the ECAB that the his educational program and that his behavior would District should not be rewarded for not accumulating data,8 deteriorate without structure. An expert from Bancroft, we find it significant that the legislature did not deem it who had personally assessed and worked with the necessary to punish this conduct by automatically imposing student, testified that in his opinion the student needs an obligation to provide ESY for every affected student. structure all the time. Another expert, a clinical Jason’s parents could have established the need for ESY psychologist who evaluated the student, testified that he through the use of expert testimony, but, as explained below, needs a highly structured, uninterrupted flow of services they did not. We further note that even if Jason’s parents throughout the year and that without such services, the could have established the need for ESY, the record clearly student would inevitably suffer significant regression. shows that the Bancroft program did not provide services that would qualify as ESY. J.A. at 90. The clinical psychologist referred to by the ECAB was Dr. Ebbens and it is his testimony that we now turn to. With respect to the need for ESY for the 1997-98 school Dr. Ebbens evaluated Jason on February 6, 2001, more than year, the hearing officer found that “[i]t is not necessary to a year after all relevant decisions by the District had been made in this case. Dr. Ebbens was asked on direct examination to explain why in his opinion it was “important 7 that services for Jason have no interruption throughout the The Third C ircuit interp reted the regu lation to mean that: year?” Dr. Ebbens answered: [A]ppeals panels reviewing the fact findings of hearing officers . . . exercise plenary review, except that they should defer to the hearing officer’s findings based upon credibility judgments I’ve worked with developmentally delayed kids and unless the non-testimonial, extrinsic evidence in the record adults throughout my years even beginning in would justify a contrary conclusion or unless the record rea d in undergraduate training. I’ve consulted with a lot of TBI its entirety would compe l a contrary conclusion. or traumatic brain injury programs. Almost invariably Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520 , 529 (3d Cir. 1995 ). what happens if you don’t provide that constant flow of 8 services, that there’s going to be regression and If the question of data accumulation becomes important on remand, significant regression. The way these kinds of there is testimony from Mr. Burdge that such data was in fact collected and provided to the parents. J.A. at 1347 -52. See also J.A. at 222-23. individuals process information, without that flow not Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 19 20 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
only will there be regression, but there’s going to be a “Plaintiff’s parents are seeking an ideal education for their considerable amount of time before they can catch up. child. Their aspirations are understandable, even admirable. Let’s say they leave the program for a few months or the But neither they nor any other parents have the right under the residential facility or wherever they might be. There is law to write a prescription for an ideal education for their going to be a considerable amount of time before they child and to have the prescription filled at public expense.” can get back up to that level where they had been. Cordrey, 917 F.2d at 1474 (citation omitted). People with traumatic brain injury or severe developmental delays, they tend to be very concrete, very With respect to FAPE for the 1998-2000 school years, the obsessional. If they’re not hooked in on a program, then hearing officer found that the record did not “present that’s going to affect that whole process or rehabilitation evidence, other than parent opinion, that the IEP developed on basically. September 16, 1998, did not provide FAPE” for Jason. J.A. at 49. The hearing officer noted that “[t]he parents were J.A. at 181-82. Dr. Ebbens was also asked what his opinion active participants in the educational planning for their child. was “regarding regression for Jason Hunt.” He answered They did not like some aspects of the program, but they did “[m]y opinion would be if you were to take him out of a full- not substantiate that the IEP was not reasonably designed to time, intense comprehensive program, that it is inevitable that provide benefit.” Id. The hearing officer also found that the he would regress and quite significantly.” J.A. at 182. We “school district had no opportunity, need or obligation to find this testimony inadequate to meet the high burden that develop an IEP for the student for the 1999-2000 school year, the Cordrey court imposed on those who propose an ESY for as he was not enrolled in the district.” J.A. at 51. Finally, the inclusion in the child’s IEP. In other words, there was no hearing officer found that the District did not fail to provide demonstration, “in a particularized manner relating to the adequate FAPE with their IEP for the summer of 2000 individual child, that an ESY is necessary to avoid something because an “appropriate ESY program was offered by the more than adequately recoupable regression.” Cordrey, 917 District and the parents refused to accept anything less than F.2d at 1473. Dr. Ebbens could only opine, based on his a full-time replication of the Chileda IEP. That is certainly experience with individuals similar to Jason, that it would the right of the parents, but the school district is not obligated take two months or more for Jason to recoup what he would to fund the parent’s chosen placement.” J.A. at 55. Once lose without ESY. This opinion was not particularized nor again, the ECAB disagreed with all aspects of the hearing did it explain whether two months is or is not an adequately officer’s decision. It found that parents felt that they had to recoupable regression.9 As the Cordrey court noted: sign a one-year contract with Chileda in order to receive any
9 The district court relied on two other experts to support its finding. regress over the summer. However, as pointed out above, to obtain ESY, Gil Damon, a Behavioral Team Leader at the Bancroft Center, testified at a plaintiff must show that his regression would be greater than that of a the due process hearing that Jason needed a structured environment year normal child. The District, on the other hand, presented Mr. Burdge’s round. J.A. at 1745-46. Sheri Carlson, the Director of Behavior at the testimony that the general recoupment time for a no rmal, Chileda Institute, testified that Jason would need between one month and “unhandicapped” child was eight weeks. J.A. at 1346. Th e eight-week six weeks to recover from regression suffered during the summer break. “typical” regression is actually less than Ms. Carlson’s estimate for J.A. at 1687-88. The opinions of those two experts suffer from the same Jason’s regression. Plaintiffs offered no reason to discredit that aspect of infirmity as that of Dr. Ebbers–they merely point out that Jason wou ld Mr. Burdge’s testimony. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 21 22 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
services for Jason at all. It then noted that it had earlier, J.A. schools lack the resources to enable every child to achieve his at 82-6, concluded that the District failed to provide FAPE to full potential.” Cordrey, 917 F.2d at 1474. The ECAB noted Jason for any of the years in question.10 It also found that a number of issues that were not addressed in the IEPs.11 Chileda was appropriate for Jason. The ECAB continued: However, the District’s resources are limited (both in terms of time and money), and it must make a decision on how to Having concluded that the IEPs of the [District] were not balance all of the conflicting needs of a child such as Jason. appropriate and that the placement of the parent was The District had decided on a proper course of action with the appropriate we must still balance the equities in this case. input and consent of Jason’s parents. The District thus While we acknowledge that the parents were active fulfilled its legal obligation to Jason. While Jason’s parents participants in the educational process of this child, and the mother regularly attended ARC meetings, the parents are not educators and cannot be responsible for knowing how an IEP or behavior plan should be written and implemented. . . . We find that all of these factors, taken 11 together, tip the balance in favor of awarding It is also important that although the ECAB identified a number of problems with IEPs preceding the 19 98-20 00 scho ol years, those reimbursement to the parents, even for residential prob lems, if they existed , had nothing to do with whether or not Jason was placement. entitled to ESY for school years before 1998. Nor is it of any relevance to whether Jason’s parents were justified in making a placement at J.A. at 91. We understand the plight of Jason’s parents and Chileda in the spring of 1999. The o nly relevant IEPs are those starting we understand the ECAB’s willingness to extend its with the IEP dated September 16, 1998. The ECA B identified the sympathy to them. We cannot, however, condone an following faults with that IEP: [It] says that the student will improve social competence in the imposition of a “heavy financial drain upon the public fisc,” area of behavior. His short term objective is to improve Cordrey, 917 F.2d at 1473, in circumstances such as these. behavior in the areas of transitions, work completion, behaviors Jason’s parents have closely supervised his development since re mouth, and behaviors re hands. No information whatsoever his birth; they have sent him to numerous schools; they have is given to explain exactly what the student must do in order to monitored his progress; they discussed all matters pertaining show mastery of any of these ob jectives. Daily reports received from the special education teacher pro vided general com ments to his education with personnel inside and outside the to the parents, such as “go od d ay today” or “W ild today . . .”, but District; and they even hired an attorney to represent them. these do not indicate in any way whether o r not the student is Although we agree that they are not educators, that fact alone progressing toward m astery of the objec tives. is not dispositive here. Jason’s parents want the best for their J.A. at 85-6. W e think that the ECAB was requiring too much from the child. It is a commendable desire. However, we stress that District. W e are at a loss to understand how a school district can show a progress towards, for example, behaviors “re hands” beyond what the “an appropriate education is not synonymous with the best District stated in the IEP. J.A. at 1030. M oreover, the White IEP is no possible education. . .. It is also not education which enables more opaque than the Chiled a IEP , which, for example, set goals for a child to achieve his full potential; even the best public demonstrating “age-ap propriate social interactio n skills” and “socially app ropriate behaviors in the community.” J.A. at 1137. With respe ct to the IEP for the 1999-2000 school year, the ECAB acknowledged that the 10 IEP contained p rioritized goals b ut still found it deficient. J.A. at 86. W e This appears to be the first time that the adequacy of FA PE actually agree with the hearing officer that since Jason was no t a student at W hite became an ESY issue. during that year, his IEP for that yea r is irrelevant. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 23 24 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. Nos. 02-6027/6028 Hunt, et al. Hunt, et al.
understandably desire more, they are not entitled to have the B. Retroactive Application of an IDEA Regulation District pay for it.12 It appears that in its decision, the district court applied an As explained above, we conclude that the ECAB and the incorrect version of the IDEA regulations. The district court district court erred when they determined that the 1999-2000 cited a version of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations IEP was invalid and that Jason did not receive FAPE for the that did not become effective until August 14, 2000. That 1999-2000 school year. Accordingly, we conclude that Jason date is after all the relevant developments in this case.14 The may have been offered an adequate FAPE. We also conclude parties do not dispute that the district court should have that once Jason’s parents rejected the District’s offer and took Jason out of the school for the entire school year, he may not have been entitled to ESY for the summer of 2000.13 to the academic programs because Fridays typically were community outings and W ednesdays were swim days. Furthermore, Jason also missed a week while attending camp from August 7 through 11. J.A. at 12 186 Although we are prima rily concerned with the D istrict’s inability Second, neither the ECA B nor the district court made any finding as to present evidence to the district court, we recognize that when the to whether Jaso n was making reasonable progress with his FAPE in the district court limited the length of the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs, as relevant years. The ECAB pointed to a lack of records, not surprising well, were p revented from presenting all the evid ence they may have to since the issue was not litigated before the hearing officer where the support their claim. Accordingly, throughout this opinion, we comment parents were asking for ESY and sought the 1999-200 0 school years as only on evidence that is in the existing record. No portion of this opinion required in order to participate in the summer program at Chileda. Both should be viewed as foreclosing Plaintiffs from prevailing on remand. To parents testified they were satisfied with Jason=s academic progress at prevail, however, either they will have to prese nt add itional evidence that W hite’s Tower but not his behavioral situation. At the hearing before the would address the concerns that we have expressed in this opinion or the district court, his teacher for the 1998-99 year testified that after his return district court must state its reasons for rejecting the testimony of Mr. to school after his hospitalization at the Franciscan Ho spital, he had o nly Burdge. two occa sions o f vomiting during the remaind er of his time at W hite’s Towe r, a period of several months, that his toileting was handled in much 13 the same way as it was at Chileda, using an icon and regular reminders, Rather than make legal findings with respect to both FAPE and ESY, we rem and to the district court for further factual find ings to and that while there were some accidents, they were few. Testing supplement the record. We exp ressly note the follo wing deficiencies in indicated that Jason progressed at about the same rate at Chileda as the proceedings below. W hite’s Tower. W hile the Chileda program m ay have been more First, the district court fo und that the ESY proposed by the District effective to improve Jason=s behavioral problems, defendant is not for the summer of 2000 was inadequate because it was not proposed by required to provide a residential program. an ARC. H owever, since Jaso n was not enrolled at White during 1999- 14 2000, there was no ARC to convene. Instead, the program was The portion of the regulation relied upon by the district court constructed by an experienced teacher based on the IEP prepared at provides: Chileda and designed for transition to middle school at Turkey Foot in the In the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her school district where Jason would be enrolled in the fall. While Chileda education or that of others, consider, if appropriate, strategies, officials stated that the proposed program would not suffice beca use it including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and ended on July 27 while the Chileda program co ntinued until August 17, supports to address that behavior. the fall scho ol semester started in August and so there was only a slight 707 K Y . A D M IN . R EGS . 1:320 § 5(2)(a)(2 000 ). The 20 00 version of the difference in duration of the summer program. Also, while the D istrict’s regulations is more specific with resp ect to what an IE P sho uld co ntain proposed program was for only three days a week, Chileda’s report of its than the earlier version applicable to the years in question here. (Appellee summer 2000 program indicates that only three days a week were devoted Br. at 50.) Nos. 02-6027/6028 Kenton County Sch. Dist. v. 25 Hunt, et al.
applied the pre-2000 regulations. Rather, they dispute whether the reliance on the new regulations amounted to a harmless error. Because of our ultimate disposition of this case, we do not address this problem. C. Deference to the ECAB The District argues on appeal that the district court improperly deferred to the ECAB instead of the hearing officer. Although it is not germane to our disposition of the case, we reiterate that federal courts defer to the final decision of the state authorities, which, in this case, means the decision of the ECAB. See, e.g., Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ., 918 F.2d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 1990); Burilovich v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lincoln Consol. Sch., 208 F.3d 560, 567 (6th Cir. 2000). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we reverse. Because we have found that the ECAB committed a number of reversible legal errors and that the district court relied on the ECAB opinion without a full evidentiary hearing, we remand to the district court for a full hearing on the issues raised by the parties. On remand, the district court should place the burden of establishing the need for an ESY (during the summers) and a lack of FAPE (during the regular school year) on plaintiffs.