Opinion ID: 1453516
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inappropriate behavior

Text: The inappropriateness of R.B.'s behavior during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years is manifest. As a fifth grader, R.B. was sent to the principal's office for, e.g., pinching and twisting classmates' arms on the playground on multiple occasions, tearing up classroom materials, verbalizing her hope that her music teacher would die, poking a classmate with a pencil because he would not help her cheat, and using the f-word. Morrison testified that R.B. physically attacked counselors at Intermountain and damaged property at least daily. R.B. would also attack younger children and throw food. R.B. admitted that she deliberately included grammatical errors in her written work because she enjoyed making life difficult for Brandt. When R.B. became a danger to herself or to others, Brandt would send R.B. to day coverage: this happened weekly during R.B.'s first four months in the classroom. Nonetheless, the SEHO questioned whether R.B.'s inappropriate behavior took place under the requisite normal circumstances because R.B. was not regularly taking her ADHD medication for most of the fifth grade year. (SEHO Decision, at 9.) We similarly question whether R.B.'s first months at Intermountain were normal circumstances because R.B. was adapting to life at a new school away from her family. Appellants contend the SEHO and district court were blind to R.B.'s long history of behavioral problems. The misconduct that prompted the behavioral support plan during the fifth grade year was allegedly just a continuation of conduct that began in previous years and persisted through the remainder of R.B's fifth grade year and at Intermountain. Appellants make much of the behavioral support plan's passing reference to R.B.'s habitual history of this type of resistant behavior, concluding that this language alone establishes the District's knowledge that R.B.'s inappropriate behavior has continued over a long period of time. Even if these circumstances were normal within the meaning of the regulation, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that R.B.'s inappropriate behavior was not to a marked degree over a long period of time. Appellants misconstrue the import of the behavioral support plan that Donaldson Way Elementary implemented during the second trimester of R.B.'s fifth grade year. The whole point of the plan was that R.B.'s habitual history of isolated incidents of misconduct reached acute levels during that trimester. Once the District implemented the support plan, R.B.'s behavior improved. In other words, while R.B. engaged in inappropriate behavior over several years of school, that behavior was to a marked degree only during one trimester of one grade. We accord particular deference to the SEHO's thorough and careful finding that R.B.'s behavior was not pervasive and ongoing, and conclude that R.B. cannot establish IDEA eligibility on the basis of inappropriate behavior during her fifth-grade year. For the same reasons, R.B. likewise cannot establish IDEA eligibility based on her inappropriate behavior at Intermountain. In a passage cited by the district court, Morrison testified that R.B. began to develop sympathy for others and react to anxious situations without becoming violent. Similarly, Brandt saw a big improvement in R.B.'s classroom attitude by April 2003 and began to allow R.B. to participate in class field trips. R.B.'s inappropriate behavior further does not amount to a severe emotional disturbance because it did not adversely affect her educational performance. California primarily gauges educational performance through academic measures. See Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 39 IDELR 28, at 3, 5, 13 (CA SEA Jan. 16, 2003); Ventura Unified Sch. Dist., 102 LRP 7625, at 23-25 (CA SEA Nov. 21, 2000). Here, all grades on R.B.'s fifth-grade report card were 4 or 5, indicating work at or above grade level. During the year at Intermountain, a majority of her grades were A or B, with only one D. R.B.'s achievement test scores were similarly average or better. Even the 2002 spelling score on which appellants so heavily rely placed R.B. in the 57th percentile, above more than half of her peers. A preponderance of the evidence shows that any of R.B.'s exhibited characteristics did not adversely affect her educational performance. Appellants claim the SEHO erred by using R.B.'s grades as a litmus test instead of considering that R.B.'s educational performance was below her ability. They rely on out-of-circuit cases requiring analysis of the individual student's potential to determine IDEA eligibility. Our rule, however, is that the IDEA does not guarantee the absolutely best or `potential-maximizing' education for the individual child. Gregory K., 811 F.2d at 1314 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n. 21, 102 S.Ct. 3034); accord Drew P. v. Clarke County Sch. Dist., 877 F.2d 927, 930 (11th Cir.1989). While the Supreme Court has cautioned that merely advancing from grade to grade does not satisfy the IDEA, Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203 n. 25, 102 S.Ct. 3034, it also limited the IDEA's guarantees to the basic floor of opportunity, id. at 201, 102 S.Ct. 3034. Appellants cite the District's development of Rehabilitation Act § 504 plans and behavioral support plans as further evidence that R.B.'s behavioral problems adversely affected her educational performance. The Rehabilitation Act is, however, a separate statutory scheme with different qualifying criteria, and R.B.'s satisfaction of those criteria do not automatically make her eligible under the IDEA. Muller ex rel. Muller v. Comm. on Special Ed. of the East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 99 n. 2 (2d Cir.1998); Yankton Sch. Dist. v. Schramm, 93 F.3d 1369, 1376 (8th Cir.1996). Furthermore, California school districts commonly turn to behavioral support plans as alternative remedies for students who do not satisfy the IDEA's criteria for a severe emotional disturbance. See Ventura Unified Sch. Dist., 102 LRP 7625, at 5, 10 (CA SEA Nov. 21, 2000). In summary, by a preponderance of the evidence and with deference to the SEHO's thorough and careful findings, we conclude that R.B.'s inappropriate behavior was not to a marked degree over a long period of time and did not adversely affect her educational performance. Therefore, R.B. was not eligible for IDEA relief under this prong.