Opinion ID: 2976151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive IDEA Violations

Text: The Deal II opinion stated the general rule that “a school district is only required to provide educational programming that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to derive more than de minimis educational benefit.” Deal II, 392 F.3d at 861. The Deal II court then noted that, “[T]here is a point at which the difference in outcomes between two methods can be so great that provision of the lesser program could amount to denial of a FAPE.” Id. at 862. The court went on to adopt the view that “the IDEA requires an IEP to confer a ‘meaningful educational benefit’ gauged in relation to the potential of the child at issue.” Id. Having been instructed to carefully consider Zachary’s individual abilities, the district court appropriately began its analysis on remand with an examination of Zachary’s potential. Deal v. Hamilton County Dep’t Educ., No. 1:01-cv-295, slip op. at 3-9 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2006) (Memorandum Decision) [hereinafter Deal III]. As mentioned previously, the district court must -3- No. 06-6123/6214 Deal v. Hamilton County Dep’t of Educ. accord due deference to the administrative findings; however, “[t]he more that the district court relies on new evidence, . . . the less it should defer to the administrative decision.” Alex R., ex rel. Beth R. v. Forrestville Valley Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. #221, 375 F.3d 603, 612 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of the Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting that where the district court hears additional evidence it is “free to accept or reject the agency findings depending on whether those findings are supported by the new, expanded record”). The district court was entitled to rely on the additional expert testimony that contradicted the ALJ’s findings and much of the testimony before the ALJ. As a result, the district court’s findings regarding Zachary’s skills and potential are not clearly erroneous. See Deal III, slip op. at 3-9. Additionally, the district court noted that Zachary’s home program was not identical to the treatment received by children in the Lovaas study, and it therefore cannot be expected to produce the same results. Id. at 19. Based on the district court’s findings, we cannot say the home program was so superior to the School System’s program that refusal to fund the home program constituted denial of a FAPE. As for whether the substantive program offered by the School System would have provided Zachary with a FAPE, different methodologies may be appropriate for treating autism and provide a FAPE as long as the student’s individual needs are considered and the program is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. See Dong ex rel. Dong v. Bd. of Educ. of Rochester Cmty. Sch., 197 F.3d 793, 803-04 (6th Cir. 1999). In light of the additional testimony heard by the district court, we agree that the preponderance of the evidence supports the district court’s determination that -4- No. 06-6123/6214 Deal v. Hamilton County Dep’t of Educ. the School System’s IEPs were reasonably calculated to offer Zachary a meaningful educational benefit.