Case Title: In Re Due Process Hearing of Bailey

Citation: 233 Kan. 714, 664 P.2d 1379

Docket Number: 55,347

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1983-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
233 Kan. 714 (1983)
664 P.2d 1379
In re: DUE PROCESS HEARING OF KURT BAILEY,
KENNETH E. and BARBARA BAILEY as natural parents and guardians for KURT E. BAILEY, a minor child, Appellants,
v.
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 345, Appellee.
No. 55,347

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 10, 1983.
A. Rodman Johnson, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellants.
Robert D. Hecht, of Scott, Quinlan & Hecht, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is a dispute between plaintiffs Kenneth E. and Barbara Bailey, parents of a handicapped child, Kurt E. Bailey, and defendant Unified School District No. 345 concerning the latter's determination the child's free appropriate public education is residential placement at the Kansas State School for the Visually Handicapped (K.S.S.V.H.). The parents demand Kurt continue his mainstream education in the local public school system.
The Baileys were provided a due process hearing pursuant to K.S.A. 72-972. The parties presented their evidence, and the hearing examiner upheld the school district's determination K.S.S.V.H. was an appropriate placement for the child. Pursuant to K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 72-974(b) the Baileys appealed the hearing examiner's decision to the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education reviewed the 700-page transcript and exhibits *715 and held a review hearing wherein arguments of counsel were heard. The Board upheld the decision of the hearing examiner. The Baileys appealed the decision of the Board to the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 72-974(c). No additional evidence was submitted to the district court and, based on the record from the administrative proceeding, the district court upheld the decision of the Board, finding the same to be "supported adequately and fully" by the record. The Baileys appeal to this court from the district court decision.
Two issues are presented on appeal. The first relates to alleged district court error in excluding evidence and the second relates to whether the district court erred in finding there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision.
The exclusion issue may be stated as follows. Did the district court err in refusing to admit additional evidence offered by the Baileys after the case had been submitted to the court for determination?
On January 3, 1983, the parties presented their oral arguments to the district court. Four days later, January 7, 1983, plaintiffs' attorney filed a motion to submit additional evidence which stated in pertinent part:
"Movant shows this Court:
The district court, in its Memorandum Decision filed on January 18, 1983, denied plaintiffs' motion. In so doing the court stated:
The "applicable federal law" referred to in the Bailey motion is 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2), a part of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.) 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) provides:
The Baileys interpret 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) as carte blanche authority to submit additional evidence at any time before the decision by the district court. We do not agree.
The purpose of the "additional evidence" provision of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) was discussed in Anderson v. Thompson, 495 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1980), aff'd 658 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir.1981). In Anderson there was a three-year interim between the administrative decision relative to the handicapped child's needs and the court hearing on the appeal therefrom. The school district argued the court should be limited to reviewing the record from the state administrative hearing. In rejecting the school district's contention, the United States District Court stated:
Continuing:
We interpret the "additional evidence" provision of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) as applying only to evidence offered at the time of the district court hearing. To require a court to consider evidence submitted at any time prior to decision could destroy orderly determination of the issues and final determination could be postponed indefinitely by a party who believed the decision might be unfavorable.
No proffer of evidence was made to the district court and no *717 reason has been espoused as to why the "additional evidence" could not have been introduced at the time of the hearing. Indeed, even on appeal we have no information as to the nature of such "additional evidence."
We find no error or abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to permit the introduction of additional evidence after the hearing had concluded.
The second issue is whether there was substantial evidence to support the State Board of Education's decision. The parties have agreed the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the district court in this proceeding is the substantial evidence test.
In Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Foote, 200 Kan. 447, 436 P.2d 828 (1968), 28 A.L.R.3d 472, this court enunciated a three-pronged test for judicial review of administrative actions.
Recently, in Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment v. Banks, 230 Kan. 169, 630 P.2d 1131 (1981), this court defined substantial evidence as:
See also Ryan, Judicial Review of Administrative Action  Kansas Perspectives, 19 Washburn L.J. 423, 430-31 (1980).
The portion of the district court's memorandum decision relative to this issue states:
The only challenge before us as to the sufficiency of the evidence relates to the ultimate determination by the school district that residential placement at the Kansas State School for the Visually Handicapped (K.S.S.V.H.) is an appropriate educational program for Kurt.
Kansas is a participating state in the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. As such, Kansas is required by 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5) to establish:
See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.550 (1982).
To assure compliance with the federal act, a participating state must have a "state plan" submitted to and approved by the United States Secretary of Education (formerly Commissioner of Education), which demonstrates the State "has in effect a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412[1] and 1413). For an excellent discussion of the history, purposes, requirements and operation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of *719 1975, see Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982). For our purposes herein, it is sufficient to say Kansas has an approved state plan which establishes the same "mainstream" preference enunciated by 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5). See Menninger & Dittmeier, The Law and Handicapped Persons: Achieving Equality Through New Rights, 47 J.K.B.A. 181, 182-83 (1978).
We turn now to the record in this case. Kurt Bailey was born June 6, 1966, visually impaired. His mother, Barbara Bailey, and his sister are also visually impaired. Kurt's father, Kenneth E. Bailey, is the only normal sighted family member. Tragically, Kurt's vision has deteriorated throughout his childhood. At this point Kurt is considered legally blind and his medical prognosis is total blindness within a few years. There is no medical treatment which can improve his vision. Kurt also suffers from hearing disabilities and emotional difficulties, the latter arising primarily by virtue of the inability of Kurt and his family to accept and cope with the child's blindness. Kurt has normal intellectual ability.
Defendant school district has worked with Kurt and his family for over ten years. In addition to special education, the school district has provided Kurt and his family counseling services with the Menninger Foundation. The school district has frequently consulted with experts from K.S.S.V.H. as to how best to tailor a program suited to Kurt's very special needs. The boy's multiple handicaps, coupled with normal intellect, make his needs unique in the district. Kurt was "mainstreamed" in regular classes during his junior high school years and the district supplied many special services to him including a qualified teacher to sit with him in the regular classes and provide assistance. The school district also arranged for Kurt to obtain special mobility training at the State Rehabilitation Center for the Blind, a program he would normally have been ineligible for due to his youth. One of the experts testifying for the school board aptly described the school district's efforts to assist Kurt as "herculean."
The school district evaluated Kurt's needs in consultation with various outside experts in the field and finally concluded enrollment in a regular high school would not be an appropriate education program for Kurt after completion of junior high. *720 Various factors were considered such as: (1) the open setting of the high school with attendant higher noise levels which would increase his difficulty of hearing what was said in class; (2) increased mobility problems inherent in attending classes in the high school; (3) the diversity of subjects offered in the high school which would greatly complicate assignment of qualified teachers to sit with him in each class and provide special assistance (the total cost of mainstreaming him in high school was estimated at $187,000 per year); and (4) Kurt's major deficiencies in self-help and social skills including the absence of peer friends. The evidence showed Kurt had advanced academically considerably beyond his ability to function as a reasonably self-sufficient human being. Major deficiencies lie in various aspects of the important business of living. Unfortunately, his family has been unable or unwilling to assist Kurt in maturing and learning to live with his handicaps. The resultant emotional problems surface in the exhibition of considerable inappropriate behavior in school.
Kurt's parents are adamant he should continue to be mainstreamed in the local public school system and presented evidence he could receive some benefit from the public schools.
The district court concluded the state board's affirmance of the hearing examiner's ruling in favor of the school district's recommended K.S.S.V.H. placement was "supported adequately and fully" by the evidence contained in the record. We agree. If Kurt is to grow and mature, certainly he must receive academic training. Perhaps even more importantly, Kurt must be assisted in accepting his blindness and must learn the self-help skills necessary to function. K.S.S.V.H. has the setting, the program and the experienced staff to assist Kurt in all facets of his special needs and clearly is an appropriate educational placement within the purview of the applicable state and federal laws.
We conclude the district court did not err in finding the decision of the State Board of Education was supported by substantial competent evidence.
We have disposed of all issues raised by the appellants. However, there is one matter which was not raised by the parties which causes the court some concern. The parties have agreed the appeal from the State Board of Education was pursuant to K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 72-974(c) which is a part of the Special *721 Education for Exceptional Children Act, K.S.A. 72-961 et seq. K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 72-974(c) provides:
K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-2101 referred to in K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 72-974(c) is the general administrative review statute and therefore, absent any other considerations, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Foote, 200 Kan. 447, three-pronged test for judicial review would be applicable to appeals thereunder  including the substantial evidence test. Throughout these proceedings the parties have concurred the applicable test on judicial review herein is the substantial evidence test.
However, the first issue in this appeal relates wholly to a provision of federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. while the second issue relies on the federal act in part. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) is reiterated in pertinent part as follows:
While noting the correct standard for civil actions under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) is preponderance of the evidence, the United States Supreme Court in Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, has held this does not mean a court may substitute its judgment for that of the state educational agency. In construing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2), the court, through Justice Rehnquist, observed:
In Town of Burlington v. Department of Ed., Etc., 655 F.2d 428 (1st Cir.1981), a United States District Court was called upon to pass on a state department of education's determination holding plaintiff should reimburse a parent for the cost of special education for a handicapped child. Operating under Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., the district court held, under the state law substantial evidence standard, the actions of the state education department should be affirmed. On appeal the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding, as the case was being determined under the federal law, the correct standard of judicial review of an administrative action concerning a handicapped child's education was preponderance of the evidence. In so holding, the court declared:
The first issue in this appeal was concerned exclusively with the additional evidence provision of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). The preponderance of the evidence provision is contained in the same sentence of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). Accordingly, the parties must have been aware of its existence but proceeded under state law.
The preponderance of the evidence test, of necessity, involves weighing of the evidence  which the trial court did not do in this case. However, the evidence before the trial court consisted wholly of the record from the administrative proceedings. Under such circumstances, this court is on an equal footing with the district court in applying the preponderance of the evidence test. We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude under either the substantial evidence test or preponderance of the evidence test the decision of the State Board of Education should be upheld.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.