Opinion ID: 546213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial-Level Review.

Text: 16 In this type of case, the law demands that the district court: 17 ... shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. 18 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2). The court's principal function is one of involved oversight. [T]he Act contemplates that the source of the evidence generally will be the administrative hearing record, with some supplementation at trial, and obligates the court of first resort to assess the merits and make an independent ruling based on the preponderance of the evidence. Burlington II, 736 F.2d at 790; see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 205, 102 S.Ct. at 3050; Abrahamson v. Hershman, 701 F.2d 223, 230 (1st Cir.1983); Burlington v. Department of Educ., 655 F.2d 428, 431 (1st Cir.1981) (Burlington I ). Nevertheless, the district court's task is something short of a complete de novo review. Colin K. v. Schmidt, 715 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1983). 19 The required perscrutation must, at one and the same time, be thorough yet deferential, recognizing the expertise of the administrative agency, ... consider[ing] the [agency's] findings carefully and endeavor[ing] to respond to the hearing officer's resolution of each material issue. Burlington II, 736 F.2d at 791-92. Jurists are not trained, practicing educators. Thus, the statutory scheme binds trial courts to give due weight to the state agency's decision in order to prevent judges from imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the States. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. Hence, the court must render what we have called a bounded, independent decision[ ]--bounded by the administrative record and additional evidence, and independent by virtue of being based on a preponderance of the evidence before the court. Burlington II, 736 F.2d at 791. 20 Tracking the Act's two overriding concerns, the trial court's assessment of the IEP must address both procedural guarantees and substantive goals. The court must ask two questions: 21 First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? 22 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. While the inquiry is necessarily as multifaceted as the Act, the sufficiency of the IEP remains the paramount concern: The ultimate question for a court under the Act is whether a proposed IEP is adequate and appropriate for a particular child at a given point in time. Burlington II, 736 F.2d at 788; see also Defendant I, 898 F.2d at 1191. 23