Opinion ID: 1355189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was M.R.D. provided a free and appropriate education?

Text: The IDEA and corresponding Kentucky regulation entitle disabled students to a free and appropriate education (FAPE). [20] The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that a FAPE consists of education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child `to benefit' from the instruction. [21] The IDEA does not charge the school district, however, with the obligation to maximize each student's potential; rather the IDEA requires only that the school district provide a basic floor of opportunity, sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child. [22] The IDEA's basic floor of opportunity is achieved, in part, through the establishment of an IEP pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(18)(D). The IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit to the handicapped child. [23] Evidence in the record reveals that M.R.D. maintained a B grade average during the years at issue, and the ECAB's decision notes that no evidence was presented to indicate that M.R.D. was being given these passing grades. Further evidence was presented that M.R.D.'s IEP was properly reconsidered every year. M.R.D.'s fifth grade teacher testified that fifth grade was successful for him; a private expert secured by M.R.D.'s parents also noted M.R.D.'s progress during his fifth grade year and attributed this progress in part to the IEP. Though M.R.D.'s parents expressed dissatisfaction with his progress during sixth grade, M.R.D. was provided an IEP for that year and was promoted to seventh grade. M.R.D.'s seventh grade teacher testified that M.R.D. was making educational progress during that year. M.R.D.'s eighth grade teacher gave similar testimony that M.R.D. had progressed on all of his IEP objectives for that year. As both the Fayette Circuit Court and the ECAB noted, it is difficult to determine whether M.R.D. progressed due to the education provided by the FCBE, or due to the extensive private assistance procured by his parents. However, there is ample evidence in the record that M.R.D. was provided with the requisite basic floor of opportunity and that his IEP was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit. In fact, the yearly revisions of M.R.D.'s IEP demonstrate a concerted effort to customize M.R.D.'s placement with his educational needs. Based on this and additional evidence indicating M.R.D.'s educational advancements during the years in question, we conclude that it was not clearly erroneous for the Fayette Circuit Court to determine that the FCBE was fulfilling its statutory duties in educating M.R.D. [24]