Opinion ID: 619866
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Actual Placement

Text: K.D. also contends that he was never offered actual placement in either the 2007 or 2008 IEP offers, and alternatively, that any placement he may have been offered was inappropriate. Under the IDEA's regulations, a placement must be made in compliance with the following: (a) The placement decision (1) Is made by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options; and (2) Is made in conformity with the LRE provisions of this subpart, including §§ 300.114 through 300.118; (b) The child's placement (1) Is determined at least annually; (2) Is based on the child's IEP; and (3) Is as close as possible to the child's home; 34 C.F.R. § 300.116. The least restrictive environment provision (LRE) requires that the state have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that public agencies in the state meet the LRE requirements of this section and §§ 300.115 through 300.120. Id. § 300.114. Hawaii Administrative Rules defines the LRE requirement as to the maximum extent appropriate, educating students with disabilities ... with students who are non-disabled and removing students with disabilities from the regular educational environment only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Haw. Admin. R. § 8-60-2; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2). The 2007 IEP offered to K.D. specified a free and appropriate public education at Pearl Harbor Kai elementary to be supported by an after-school program (2hrs/daily) ... in a smaller student to teacher ratio [setting] within a fully self contained environment designed ... especially for the students. The 2007 IEP further stated that K.D. would participate with general education peers for the following activities, when deemed appropriate: lunch in the cafeteria, recess and school wide assemblies. The 2008 IEP offered to K.D. specified a placement in a special education setting at Pearl Harbor Kai in a small group setting with not more than ten (10) students of varying levels of competencies, but with language abilities that will assist in facilitating [K.D.]'s communication and social skill development. The IEP also indicated that K.D. may participate with non-disabled peers in after-school group activities and outings if deemed appropriate. We conclude that both the 2007 and 2008 IEPs offered K.D. actual placement. Both identified the specific school K.D. was to attendPearl Harbor Kai Elementaryalong with a description of the classroom environment. The cases that K.D. cites for the proposition that a placement is only valid if the exact room where K.D. would be placed is specified are inapposite. In A.K. ex rel. J.K. v. Alexandria City School Board, 484 F.3d 672, 681 (4th Cir.2007), the court held as a matter of law that because [the agency] failed to identify a particular school, the IEP was not reasonably calculated to enable [the child] to receive educational benefits. In that case, the IEP only recommended a private day school, but did not specify the specific private day schools being considered. Id. The court reasoned that without a specific school being named, the parents were left to fend for themselves to determine whether any private day school in their area ... would be a satisfactory fit. Id. In contrast, K.D.'s IEP specified Pearl Harbor Kai as the school where he would be placed and offered that he would be placed into one of the three fully self contained classrooms that were available at the school. There was no question that he would have had a place in a classroom had he accepted the FAPE offer. Furthermore, in Union School District v. Smith, we held that a school district must formally offer an appropriate educational placement. 15 F.3d at 1526. In that case, the school district claimed that it did not need to do so because the parents visited the school and rejected it before a formal placement offer was actually made. Id. We held that the offer of placement was a formal requirement [that] has an important purpose that is not merely technical and that it creates a clear record that will do much to eliminate troublesome factual disputes many years later about when placements were offered, what placements were offered, and what additional educational assistance was offered to supplement a placement, if any. Id. In contrast, placement was formally offered to K.D., and any dispute that C.L. may have had with the appropriateness of the placement is immaterial to whether the placement offer was formally made. K.D. also claims that the placement offered in Pearl Harbor Kai was not appropriate. C.L.'s advocate, who visited Pearl Harbor Kai with her in 2008, testified that she believed that the classrooms were not appropriate to meet K.D.'s needs, and were babysitting classes with no good role models. To the contrary, Pearl Harbor Kai's principal, Elynne Chung, testified that the school offered three fully self contained classrooms and two resource rooms. One of the classrooms had only autistic children, but autistic children were part of the other two classrooms as well. K.D. argues that the principal's testimony should be discounted because she had not reviewed K.D.'s IEP before she showed C.L. and her advocate the classrooms, and she was the only person who testified at the hearing qualified to discuss the programs offered at Pearl Harbor Kai. However, the record shows that the district resource teacher, Aletha Sutton, also testified that she was familiar with the programs and services available at Pearl Harbor Kai. In addition, the district resource teacher testified as an expert in special education and autism, and stated that she had reviewed K.D.'s records and assessments and had an understanding of his IEP. She testified that Pearl Harbor Kai works with students with similar and lower abilities than K.D., and that one of the classrooms would be an appropriate placement for K.D. K.D. contends that Sutton's testimony should be discounted because she never assessed K.D. or worked directly with him or performed an classroom assessment of K.D. herself. However, the record reveals that Sutton additionally testified that she reviewed K.D.'s records and had observed him before he left for Loveland. The district court could properly consider the testimony of Pearl Harbor Kai's principal and the district resource teacher, and conclude that the placement offered in one of Pearl Harbor Kai's classroom was an appropriate placement for K.D. Furthermore, the record shows that Pearl Harbor Kai was more appropriate than Loveland as the least restrictive environment for K.D. Both K.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs placing him at Pearl Harbor Kai included provisions providing that he would have the opportunity to interact with non-disabled peers. In contrast, Loveland placed K.D. in a classroom with only students who had mental health or learning disabilities, and K.D. proffered no evidence indicating that he had any opportunity there to interact with his non-disabled peers. K.D.'s Loveland placement does not square with one of the main purposes behind the IDEAto combat the apparently widespread practice of relegating handicapped children to private institutions or warehousing them in special education classes. N.D., 600 F.3d 1104 at 1115. Thus, the record evidence supports the district court's decision that K.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs offered appropriate placement.