Opinion ID: 771862
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of the IDEA2

Text: 23 In exchange for federal funding, the IDEA requires states to identify, locate, and evaluate all children residing in the State who are disabled . . . and who are in need of special education and related services . . . . 20 U.S.C. § 1412(2)(C) (1994). States must provide all such disabled children a free appropriate public education (FAPE), 20 U.S.C. §1401(a)(18), and school districts receiving funds under the IDEA must establish an IEP for each child with a disability,see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5). Congress defined an IEP as follows: 24 [A] written statement for each child with a disability developed in any meeting by a representative of the local educational agency or an intermediate educational unit who shall be qualified to provide, orsupervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities, the teacher, the parents or guardian of such child, and, whenever appropriate, such child . . . . 25 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(20). Under the Act, the IEP must contain a specific statement of the child's current performance levels, the child's short-term and long-term goals, the educational and other services to be provided, and criteria for evaluating the child's progress. See id. The meeting to develop an IEP must be held within thirty calendar days of a determination that the child needs special education and related services. See 34 C.F.R. §300.343(c) (1995). Placement decisions must be based on the IEP. See 34 C.F.R. pt. 300, app. C., cmt. 5. Furthermore, the IDEA requires the school district to review the IEP at least annually and to make any necessary revisions to ensure that the child is receiving an appropriate education. See 20 U.S.C. §1415(a)(5). Finally, the IDEA mandates that children with disabilities be educated with non-disabled children to the extent appropriate. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5); 34 C.F.R. §300.550.
26 The IDEA provides a process through which parents who disagree with the appropriateness of an IEP can seek relief. The process begins with a complaint to the school district, followed by a due process hearing at which parents are able to voice their concerns to an IHO of the state educational agency, as determined by state law. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b). Any party may appeal the result of this hearing to an SLRO. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c). Finally, any party aggrieved by the result of the hearing held before the SLRO may bring suit in the appropriate state court or federal district court. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). 27 During the course of such proceedings, parents and the school are required to continue the then-current educational placement of the child as set forth in the current IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1415(e)(3)(A). If, however, parents opt not to comply with this so-called stay-put provision, they are not necessarily barred from recovering the costs of private placement. Rather, parents who elect to remove their child from public school prior to completion of the IDEA review process, and pay for appropriate specialized education themselves, may seek reimbursement for the amounts expended. See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370. Parents are entitled to such retroactive reimbursement only if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated the IDEA, and that the private school placement was proper under the Act. Florence County, 510 U.S. at 15. Thus, parents who unilaterally remove their child from public school prior to completion of the IDEA review process do so at their own financial risk. Id. (citing Burlington, 471 U.S. at 373-74). 28 When parents challenge the appropriateness of a program or placement offered to their disabled child by a school district under the IDEA, a reviewing court must undertake a twofold inquiry. See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982). First, the court must ask whether the school district has complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA. See id. Second, the court must determine whether the IEP, developed through the IDEA's procedures, is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. See id. There is no violation of the IDEA so long as the school district has satisfied both requirements. See id.
29 The IDEA's provision governing federal court review of state administrative decisions states that: In any action brought under this paragraph the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidenceat the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. 20 U.S.C. §1415(e)(2). The Supreme Court has construed this provision to mean that initial reviewing courts should make independent decisions based on the preponderance of the evidence, but also should give due weight to the determinations made during the state administrative process. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206. Although reviewing courts must not simply adopt the state administrative findings without an independent re-examination of the evidence, Doe v. Metro. Nashville Pub. Schs., 133 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1998), neither may they substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review, Doe v. Bd. of Educ. of Tullahoma City Schs., 9 F.3d 455, 458 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206). 30 According to this modified de novo standard of review, a district court is required to make findings of fact based on a preponderance of the evidence contained in the complete record, while giving some deference to the fact findings of the administrative proceedings. See Tucker, 136 F.3d at 503. This court, in turn, applies a clearly erroneous standard of review to the district court's findings of fact, and a de novo standard of review to its conclusions of law. See id.