Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02091/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cedar Rapids Community School District
Appellee
Grant Wood Area Education Agency
Appellee
Iowa Department of Education
Appellee
Renee Sneitzer
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2091

___________________________

Renee Sneitzer

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Iowa Department of Education; Cedar Rapids Community School District; Grant

Wood Area Education Agency

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: February 10, 2015

 Filed: August 7, 2015

____________

Before BYE, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Renee Sneitzer's daughter (K.S.) was a student in the Cedar Rapids Community

School District (the district). K.S. is diagnosed with a formof high functioning autism

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
known as Asperger Syndrome. Renee appeals the district court's denial of her

1

petition for review of an order issued by an administrative law judge in an Individuals

2

with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., (IDEA) case against the

district. Because the district provided K.S. with a Free Appropriate Public Education

(FAPE), we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

K.S. was 16 at the time of the proceedings before the ALJ, and in addition to

Asperger Syndrome, she has also been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder,

mood disorder, adjustment disorder, and Tourette's syndrome. These diagnoses

significantly affect K.S.'s communication, socialization, and behavior. K.S. was a

freshman and sophomore at Cedar Rapids Kennedy High School during the 2010-11

and 2011-12 school years, respectively, and resided with her step-father and Renee

within the district. K.S. is considered "twice exceptional" meaning that she is both

gifted academically, with a full scale IQ of 123, and on the autism spectrum. She

excels in math and science; successfully took several advanced placement classes at

Kennedy, and she wasinvolved in extracurricular activities including show choir, the

3

school musical, and volleyball.

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.

Christie J. Scase, Administrative Law Judge, Iowa Department of Inspections 2

and Appeals.

Kennedy's high schoolshowchoir programis highly touted, nationally known,

3

and award-winning. The varsity show choir is known as Happiness and the JV choir

is known as Protégé. And, there is a third-tier choir below Protégé for

underclassmen, which K.S. participated in as a freshman. Participation in each choir

requires a try-out selection process.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
Due to her diagnoses, K.S. was identified as an individual with a disability

under the IDEA, and has received special education and related services under an

individualized education program ("IEP"). Further, K.S. participated in the autism

spectrum disorder (ASD) program beginning in sixth grade and throughout her

remaining years in the district. Kathy Klein taught the ASD class and provided

specifically-designed instruction for high functioning ASD students. As relevant to

this appeal, K.S.'s IEP was reviewed and revised in January 2011, to cover the period

from January 2011 to January 2012. The IEP contained three behavior goals for K.S.:

(1) a goal to help her follow directions; (2) a goal to help her develop appropriate and

respectful behavioral responses to peers and adults; and (3) a goal to enable her to

better understand social rules and behavior expectations. The district also provided

K.S. with one-on-one paraprofessional support throughout the entirety of the school

day. K.S. could return to the ASD classroom any time during the school day, and also

could use the ASD classroom to take tests in a quiet environment. Despite all of K.S.'s

social difficulties, and in keeping with her gifted intellectual abilities, the record

shows that K.S. remained in the general education setting for the majority of her day,

maintained a GPA above 4.0 (because of advanced placement classes), and ranked

near the top ten percent of her class while at Kennedy.

As the ALJ aptly noted, the beginning of the year 2012 was very traumatic for

K.S. and her family. While her family vacationed over Christmas break on a

Caribbean cruise, K.S. was raped by two young men on the cruise ship. Immediately

after the rape, Renee consulted with K.S.'s medical team regarding how to assist K.S.

in overcoming this trauma. K.S.'s pediatrician prescribed a course of medication for

K.S., and K.S.'s mental health providers recommended getting her back into a routine

as quickly as possible. They suggested asking K.S. what she wanted to do, and her

first request wasto get back into show choir. Thus, shortly after the semester resumed

from winter break, K.S. returned to class and to participation in the school's Protégé

show choir in January 2012. The annual review of K.S.'s IEP had been scheduled for

January 2012. Due to the unusual circumstances, Renee agreed to postpone the annual

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
review in lieu of an interim IEP, which was dated January 11, 2012. The interim IEP

maintained the same specially designed instruction and support servicesfromthe prior

IEP. However, several additional accommodations were also implemented in January

to ease K.S.'s transition back to school after the rape. For instance, one of the

accommodations was that she was allowed to reduce or makeup her assignment load

for certain classes, allowing her to work at her own pace. Klein testified that the

understanding in January 2012 was that a full-scale review and revision would be

performed on the IEP in September 2012 for the fall semester, after everyone had a

better understanding of how K.S. had healed and hopefully recovered fromthe trauma.

Because state regulations mandate that an interim IEP not be in place for more

than 30 school days, the IEP team met again on February 10, 2012. Renee still was

occupied with criminal proceedings and other issuessurrounding the rape, and agreed

that the meeting could be held without her. She and K.S.'s father also waived any

procedural objection to the IEP being reviewed without their participation. Due to the

lack of parental participation and the understanding reached in January that it would

be best for K.S. to hold off a comprehensive meaningful review until September 2012,

the IEP team made the affirmative decision to retain the existing IEP until the fall of

2012.

K.S. experienced a number of unsettling social interactions with peers and other

emotional disappointments in the Spring 2012 semester. After a show choir

performance on January 7, 2012, K.S. reported to her mother that a male member of

the show choir held a knife to her throat and said, "I'm going to cut you, bitch." Renee

immediately confronted the student and one of the directors. The student indicated

that he had found a pocket knife in one of the drama rooms, but denied approaching

K.S. with the knife. The director admonished him for handling a knife, the incident

wasinvestigated by the principal, and no further action wastaken against thisstudent. 

Also during the spring of 2012, K.S. auditioned and was selected for a role in the high

school musical, "Fame." On April 19, opening night of the musical, K.S. and another

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
student were involved in an altercation backstage wherein K.S. accused the student of

"poking" her repeatedly. Other students who were backstage reported that the student

had tapped K.S. on the shoulder asking her to move out of the way of performers

leaving the stage following a scene, and K.S. responded by slapping the student and

using foul language. The principal initially threatened to suspend K.S. for one night

of the musical over the incident, but eventually determined that K.S. would not be

suspended as long as a paraprofessional accompanied K.S. while she was backstage.

Another IEP meeting occurred on May 2, called specifically by Klein and Renee to

address, among other things, the incident backstage during the musical. Following

this meeting, language was added to the IEP to add paraprofessionalsupport for K.S.'s

extracurricular activities.

The next major issue for K.S. during the spring of 2012 wasthe audition process

for show choir for the upcoming school year. K.S. had participated in the lower-tier

show choir as a freshman, and Protégé as a sophomore during the 2011-2012 school

year. The audition is in two-parts–the first is a blind vocal audition (worth 60%)

where singers are heard, but not seen, and scored by judges. The second part is a

dancing component (worth 40%). More than 100 girls tried out for 52 total available

positions in Happiness and Protégé. K.S.'s scores left her at 62nd, 10 places from

making the Protégé choir and 35 placesfrom making the Happiness choir. The results

are normally posted online, but the directors decided to call Renee to give her advance

notice that K.S. had not made either choir. Before calling Renee, however, the

directors met with Klein and a district autism consultant, and both of them closely

questioned the directors about the selection process to make sure K.S.'s disability was

not a factor in her missing the cut for show choir.

Relations between Renee and the district deteriorated after Renee learned K.S.

had not made the show choir, with Renee insisting that K.S. be placed in the

Happiness varsity show choir, and that any attempt to exclude her was due to her

disability and her race, as K.S. is biracial. Renee instituted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
rights proceedings in federal district court asking for a temporary restraining order

(TRO) and preliminary injunction to have K.S. placed in the Happiness show choir. 

In an attempt to end the dispute, the district offered Renee an unconditional offer to

place K.S. in the Protégé show choir. Renee did not accept this offer. The district

court held a hearing and at the hearing's conclusion, ruled orally from the bench, 4

denying Renee's requested relief. The district court found there was no evidence that

the decision regarding show choir had anything to do with K.S.'s disability. 

Nonetheless, in an effort to resolve the case before it proceeded to IDEA litigation, the

school again offered to reinstate K.S. to the Protégé show choir, this time in exchange

for Renee dropping an IDEA claim and any additional claims she had threatened to

lodge against the district's teachers. Renee refused this offer as well.

K.S. last attended school May 18, the day the show choir results were

publicized, and she eventually took her final exams off-campus. During the summer 5

months of June, July and August 2012 following her sophomore year, K.S.

participated in the summer conditioning programfor the school's volleyball team. She

attended all mandatory practices as well as several optional practices, all of which

were held at Kennedy. During this time, the volleyball coach and her individual

paraprofessional reported that K.S. got along well with coaches and other students on

the team. However, after an IEP meeting on August 16, 2012, the assistant volleyball

coach noticed K.S. was upset, and K.S. reported to the assistant volleyball coach that

K.S.'s mom didn't want her to go to Kennedy anymore.

The August 16, 2012, IEP meeting took place at Renee's request. Renee called

many witnesses–consisting of K.S.'s family, friends, medical and counseling

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

4

the Northern District of Iowa.

Her cumulative GPA following her sophomore year was 4.024, placing her

5

40th out of 385 students in her class.

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
team–most of whom testified about the necessity of K.S. being placed in the

Happinessshow choir. The notes of that meeting, which the district acknowledges are

not a verbatim transcript and may not have been exhaustive, indicate that Renee

repeatedly advanced participation in the Happiness show choir as a necessary

prerequisite to K.S. attending Kennedy in the fall. However, there is no indication that

Renee informed the district officialsthatshe was considering placing K.S. in a private

school if her demands were not met. At the August IEP meeting, Renee also expressed

concern that Klein had apparently taken a leave of absence and consequently, K.S.

would be getting a new ASD classroom coordinator. Renee previously opined that

Klein's leave of absence was in retaliation for the legal actions Renee had taken thus

far against the district. Two "prior written notices" were issued following the August

6

16 meeting, one addressing the possibility that K.S. could take college courses,

referred to as post-secondary enrollment options (PSEO) and the recognized need to

gather more information about the propriety of taking this course of action. The

second prior written notice addressed Renee's request for K.S. to be placed in the

Happiness show choir, and the team noted that while extracurricular activities were

not specifically required tomeet K.S.'s disability-related educational needs, there were

other musical extracurricular activities in which K.S. could participate. Thus, the

result of the August 16 meeting was that the IEP team determined that K.S.'s needs

were social skills, physical activities that reinforce skills, consistent routines, regular

schedule, and challenging academic courses. The IEP teamconcluded that these needs

could be met in ways other than her being placed in the Happiness show choir. The

team also decided to further explore the PSEO options, and planned a follow-up IEP

meeting to finalize the details of K.S.'s possible college courses and accordingly

implement the new IEP.

The IDEA requires prior written notice of any proposed change in the

6

evaluation or educational placement of a child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3), (c).

-7-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
In addition to the incidents already discussed herein, in early July 2012, Renee

lodged an internal bullying complaint with the district that included the claim about

the knife incident in January, and the altercation between K.S. and other students

during the high school musical. Also included within this complaint was the claim

that the district discriminated against K.S. by refusing to place her in show choir. The

school investigated the complaint, and in a letter dated August 18, the district issued

its determination that officials had responded appropriately with an investigation of

the knife incident and other altercations, and that there was no discrimination related

to the show choir decision. On August 20, Renee notified the school she was

withdrawing K.S. from Kennedy immediately. She thereafter filed a due process

complaint with the Iowa Department of Education, seeking tuition reimbursement for

her placement of K.S. at the Grove School, a specialized school in Connecticut which

exclusively serves students similar to K.S. Because K.S. was no longer enrolled, a

follow-up meeting with the IEP team never took place.

A due process hearing was held over a three-day time-frame in October 2012,

and the ALJ issued a decision in favor of the district in December 2012. Following

the conclusion of administrative proceedings, Renee filed the instant action in Iowa

state court seeking review of the administrative order and the district removed the case

to federal court. The federal district court determined that the district had not failed

in its duty to provide a FAPE and denied the petition for review.

II. DISCUSSION

The IDEA requires all local educational agencies receiving federal funds to

establish procedures "to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are

guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate

public education by such agencies." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). A party challenging

whether a FAPE has been provided may file an administrative complaint, which

entitles them to receive an "impartial due process hearing" before a local or state

-8-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
educational agency. Id. § 1415(b)(6), (f). After the hearing officer renders a decision,

the aggrieved party may seek review of that decision by bringing an action in federal

district court, which reviews the administrative record and any additional evidence

requested by the parties. Id. § 1415(i)(2). The district court must make its decision

independently, based on a preponderance of the evidence, asto whether the IDEA was

violated. Pachl v. Seagren, 453 F.3d 1064, 1068 (8th Cir. 2006). This review is not

necessarily de novo, however, and the court must give "due weight" to the

administrative proceedings and should not substitute its judgment for that of the

school officials. Id. (quotation omitted). "Because judges are not trained educators,

judicial review under the IDEA is limited." Id. (quotation omitted)

In order to get reimbursement for a private placement, two requirements must

be established: that the school failed to provide a FAPE; and that the private school

is an "appropriate" placement within the meaning of the IDEA. Forest Grove Sch.

Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 242-43 n.9 (2009); Sch. Comm. of the Town of

Burlington, Mass. v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985). The school

is not required to provide an optimal experience for a student with a disability, but

instead must simply provide the student with a FAPE consistent with the IEP. Bd. of

Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 198-200

(1982). The IEP is a written document that sets out the child's present educational

performance, establishes short and long termgoals for improvement, and describesthe

specially designed services available to the child to help her achieve these goals. 20

U.S.C. § 1414(d); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988). The IEP must be

developed and reviewed annually, 14 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A)(i), in a manner that is

reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive academic benefits. T.F. v. Special

Sch. Dist. of St. Louis Cty., 449 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2006). Academic progress is

an "important factor" among others in ascertaining if the IEP was so calculated. CJN

v. Minneapolis Pub. Sch., 323 F.3d 630, 642 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). The

burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is on the party seeking

relief. Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 61-62 (2005).

-9-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
Renee argues that the IEP, written in January 2011, was not adequately updated

to meet K.S.'s needs for the 2012-2013 academic year. Renee alleges that the district

did not conduct a genuine review in August 2012 to address K.S.'s needs for the

upcoming school year; that there was a serious risk that K.S.'s placement at Kennedy

for the Fall 2012 semester would have triggered a "downward spiral" in her emotional

health, including a suicide risk; and, finally, that K.S. needed a more intensely

therapeutic environment than Kennedy could offer. The district countersthat the IEP,

as put in place in January and February 2012, and modified and evaluated in May and

August 2012 respectively, complied with the proceduralrequirements ofthe IDEAand

was reasonably calculated to provide K.S. with some educational benefit. 

To the extent Renee contends that the district failed to comply with the

proceduralrequirements ofthe IDEA by failing to conduct an annualreview mandated

by 20 U.S.C. § 1414, this argument is without merit. First, Renee expressly stated on

the record to the ALJ that she had no procedural objections to the February 2012 IEP

meeting–because of the unusual circumstancessurrounding the rape and the resulting

court proceedings, her family could not participate in the February IEP meetings. And

there is no dispute that a majority of the IEP team members met in February 2012. 

Despite Renee's absence from that meeting, the team considered her stated concerns. 

The IDEA does not require officials to revise the IEP on an annual basis; they simply

must review it. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4). 

Renee cites to E.S. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Sch. Dist., 742 F. Supp. 2d 417, 442

(S.D.N.Y. 2010) and Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir.

2012) for the proposition that schools cannot meet their obligations under the IDEA

by "recycling" an old IEP or otherwise postponing its duty to revise the IEP. KatonahLewisboro is factually distinguishable as it involves a student who, after being in

public school with an IEP, went to a private school for a year. When he was deciding

where to return for the next year, his family took into account the fact that the public

-10-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
school did not revise its earlier IEP based upon the time the student spent at private

school. 742 F. Supp. 2d at 439-40.

Anchorage is also inapposite. There, after the parents refused to attend an IEP

meeting, the school made a unilateral decision to postpone further attempts to update

the IEP, and the student ultimately regressed the following year. Anchorage, 689 F.3d

at 1052. Here, the district and Renee made a mutual decision in January 2012 to

postpone the annual review of K.S.'s IEP in order to provide the stability her health

care providers had recommended and to allow her to participate in the criminal court

process. Significantly, the district did not ignore its affirmative duty regarding the

IEP, but rather, met in February 2012 to formally address K.S.'s IEP. Although there

is evidence K.S. continued to experience behavioral changes in early spring of 2012,

the school district responded to the changes it was aware of during a meeting on May

2, 2012, and subsequently amended the IEP to allow for paraprofessional support in

K.S.'s extracurricular activities. While K.S. experienced understandable setbacks as

a result of the January 2012 rape, she also made significant progress during the spring

semester, including better attendance and high grades–untilshe was not chosen for the

show choir. Even still, after the show choir incident, the evidence indicates that K.S.

had made significant progress in volleyball during summer workouts, including

getting along with her peers in the volleyball program.

With regard to the substance of K.S.'s IEP, Renee contends that the emotional

changes that K.S. underwent from January 2012 to August 2012 warranted more than

simply minor changes to the IEP. Thus, she argues, as of the Fall 2012 semester, the

district's educational offer was not appropriate. As evidence of this shortfall, Renee

points to K.S.'s increased self-mutilation, her practice of isolating herself from her

peers, and an overall deterioration of her mental health. The district concedes that no

changes were made in February 2012, and only minor ones were made in May and

August 2012, but notes that the behaviors pointed out by Renee were not new

behaviors for K.S. K.S.'s attendance was down shortly after the rape, but improved

-11-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
after the court proceedings subsided. The district advanced that the primary reason

K.S. withdrew from school on May 18 was due to the show choir decision. Further,

the IEP team worked closely with K.S.'s medical team and implemented the team's

recommendations and advice during the time period following the rape. Those

recommendations were the impetus for leaving the IEP intact without revision in

February 2012 because the medical team recommended that K.S. remain in as

consistent a routine as possible during the aftermath of thisterribly traumatic incident. 

Given all of the foregoing, we agree that the district was providing appropriate

educational opportunities for K.S. at the inception of the Fall 2012 semester. Renee's

complaints–that K.S.'s placement at Kennedy for the Fall 2012 semester likely would

have triggered a "downward spiral" in her emotional health, and that K.S. needed a

more intensely therapeutic environment than Kennedy could offer–do not carry the

day in this IDEA litigation. This case is, unfortunately, not about what is the ideal

placement for K.S. Our analysis is whether the district was providing K.S. with a

FAPE at the time she was removed from the school. Or perhaps more pertinently,

whether Renee has proven the district was not providing K.S. a FAPE at that time. We

find that she has not met that burden, because the IEP advanced by the district was

providing K.S with "some educational benefit" as of August 2012 when Renee

unilaterally removed her from the district. Although certainly not dispositive in this

kind of case wherein the goals in the IEP were non-academic in nature, K.S.'s

academic progress further undermines the contention that K.S. was not receiving an

educational benefit by virtue of the IEP in place when K.S. was removed from the

district. See CJN, 323 F.3d at 642 ("Where . . . the record indicates that a student's

behavioral problems, if unattended, might significantly curtail [her] ability to learn,

the fact that [s]he is learning is significant evidence that [her] behavioral problems

have, at least in part, been attended to."). 

And, as the ALJ held following an exhaustive review of the relevant medical,

psychological, and educational witnesses, there was simply not enough evidence that

-12-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
K.S. was unable to return to Kennedy in August 2012, or that returning would cause

her severe and lasting psychological harm, as alleged by Renee. Many of Renee's

expert witnesses at the due process hearing who opined about such harm had not

communicated with the district personnel who spent time observing K.S. at Kennedy

while K.S. participated in volleyball over the summer months. One of Renee's expert

witnesses admitted that she did not know that K.S. had, in fact, spent a good number

of days in the Kennedy school building over the summer months. Indeed, Renee and

her witnesses spent a substantial amount of time at the August 16 IEP meeting

advocating that K.S. should return to Kennedy and be placed in the Happiness show

choir. The ALJ further found, and we agree, that each incident of bullying that was

reported to the school was promptly investigated and resolved, and the district

presented substantial evidence refuting the claim that K.S. was subjected to ongoing

bullying or harassment. K.S.'s one-on-one paraprofessional who accompanied K.S.

nearly every day of the 2012 spring semester testified at the due process hearing that

she never witnessed K.S. being bullied by other students, nor did K.S. report to her

that K.S. had been bullied. 

Renee argues that she met her burden of proof in part because she presented a

consensus of medical and psychological experts at the due process hearing, while the

school only presented district employees such as the paraprofessional, the special

education director, and the principal. Having fully reviewed the transcript of the due

process hearing, we find that while the district employees were certainly not medical

experts, they knew K.S. verywell, and the one-on-one paraprofessional was especially

well acquainted with K.S.'s emotional health over the criticalsummer 2012 timeframe. 

Klein also knew K.S. exceedingly well and spent a great amount of time with K.S.

through May 2012. In fact, it seems to have been Klein's decision to take a leave of

absence for the Fall 2012 semester that so concerned Renee that Renee called for the

August 16 IEP meeting. The district employees did not attempt to give inappropriate

medical testimony about K.S.; instead, they offered professional observations based

upon actual and ongoing contact with K.S. regarding her educational and social

-13-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758 
performance in a variety of school settings. The ALJ carefully considered all of this

testimony, and we give the ALJ'sfindings "due weight." K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No.

15, 647 F.3d 795, 803 (8thCir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Given these circumstances,

we decline Renee's request to rule in her favor simply based on the sheer number of

experts she compiled compared to the district.

Although Renee now focuses on the IEP and whether the district was adequately

meeting K.S.'s needs via the content of the IEP, it is abundantly clear from reading the

entirety of the administrative record that Renee's focus, until the time she unilaterally

pulled K.S. from the district, was getting K.S. into show choir–and not just any show

choir, as the district made an unconditional offer in July 2012 to place K.S back into

the Protégé show choir. The case was litigated in federal district court in a quest for

a TRO, and at the school district level, with the nearly singular focus that K.S.'s

educational needs could only be met by placing her in the Happiness show choir. 

Although there is not a written transcript of the August 16 IEP meeting, the notes and

testimony support the ALJ's finding that Renee and her witnesses spent a "substantial

portion" of that meeting advocating for K.S. being placed in Happiness, rather than

advocating for many, if any, specific substantive changes to the IEP. In fact it appears

from those meeting notes that Renee's primary requested change to the IEP was a

proposal that K.S. be placed into the Happiness show choir. Given all of the

opportunities and resources available to K.S. via the IEP and other extracurricular

activities at Kennedy, we find that the district's refusal to override the show choir

audition process and unilaterally require the show choir director to place K.S. in the

Happiness show choir did not deny K.S. a FAPE.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-14-

Appellate Case: 14-2091 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Entry ID: 4303758