Opinion ID: 613334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hawaii DOE's Regulations Requiring Exclusive Reliance on the Severe Discrepancy Model Violate IDEA

Text: Federal regulations cabin states' discretion to create special education eligibility criteria in two ways. First, states [m]ust not require the use of the severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(1). Second, states [m]ust permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention. 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(2). These regulations were effective beginning October 13, 2006, and therefore were controlling at the time of Courtney's final eligibility meeting on November 29, 2006. The district court held that § 300.307(a) does not bar use of the severe discrepancy model. This holding misses the point. Courtney's mother concedes that the federal regulations permit use of the severe discrepancy model, but contends that Hawaii DOE may not use the severe discrepancy model as the sole basis of determining eligibility (emphasis added). The plain and unambiguous language of § 300.307(a) prohibits states from requiring exclusive reliance on the severe discrepancy model and also requires states to allow use of the response to intervention model. The Hawaii regulations in effect at the time of Courtney's final eligibility meeting conflicted with § 300.307(a) by conditioning eligibility for special education on the existence of a severe discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability without permitting use of the response to intervention model. See Haw.Code R. § 8-56-26 (repealed Nov. 23, 2009). Hawaii DOE did not amend its regulations to conform with federal law until November 23, 2009  more than three years after the federal regulations were effective. See Haw.Code R. § 8-60-41. Accordingly, Hawaii DOE procedurally violated IDEA by requiring use of the severe discrepancy model to determine whether a child is eligible for special education under the specific learning disability classification. Hawaii DOE argues that it is not subject to § 300.307(a)(1). By its terms, § 300.307(a)(1) applies to states and not to local school districts. See John Dinan, The Meaning of State Constitutional Education Clauses: Evidence from the Constitutional Convention Debates, 70 Alb. L.Rev. 927, 965 (2007). Unlike other states, Hawaii only has a state educational agency and does not have separate local school districts. Id. Thus, Hawaii DOE serves both as the state educational agency, which creates statewide education regulations, and as the local school district, which provides educational services directly to students. Id. Because of these unique circumstances, Hawaii DOE argues that § 300.307(a) should not apply. According to Hawaii DOE, application of § 300.307(a) would deprive Hawaii DOE of its right to choose the best method for identifying students with a specific learning disability, a right every other school district enjoys. While Hawaii DOE is correct that it functions as both a state agency entrusted with IDEA compliance and as a direct provider of educational services, Hawaii DOE is incorrect that it may shirk its responsibilities as a state educational agency just because it also provides educational services directly to students. Under the amended regulations, no state educational agency may condition eligibility for special education on the existence of a severe discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability, and every state must allow use of the response to intervention model. [10] 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(1), (2). As a state educational agency, Hawaii DOE was required to promulgate regulations that are consistent with federal regulations. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1407(a), 1412(a)(11). Hawaii DOE failed to fulfill this obligation by continuing to operate under regulations that required use of the severe discrepancy model and did not permit use of the response to intervention model. Accordingly, Hawaii DOE procedurally violated IDEA. [11] To hold otherwise would be detrimental to the children of Hawaii and contrary to legislative intent. See H.R. Rep. 108-77, at 107 (noting that exclusive reliance on the severe discrepancy model may result in delayed or incorrect identification of students who are eligible for services under IDEA); accord Weber, supra 123-27.