Opinion ID: 781399
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the April 1997 IEP Proposed a FAPE Under the IDEA Standard

Text: 30 Having determined that the federal standard applies, we must next address the question of whether G's April 1997 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide G meaningful educational benefit. The parties agree that on paper — that is, in the instructional methods and activities proposed — the April 1997 IEP is reasonably calculated to provide G educational benefit, but dispute whether FBDS is able to implement the IEP. 17 We conclude that the record before us is insufficient to permit a reasoned conclusion as to whether FBDS could implement the April 1997 IEP as proposed in a way that would provide educational benefit to G. 31 As we have noted, G asserts that FBDS is unable, without the involvement of a Lovaas-certified consultant, to implement the April 1997 IEP in a way that would provide him educational benefit. G contends that the April 1997 IEP is deficient because it does not propose that the necessary role of the Lovaas consultant will be filled by anyone with comparable training or experience. In support of this argument, G relies primarily on the finding of the IHO that [t]he Lovaas Consultant is the heart of the Lovaas program. (Appellant's Br. at 29 (citing IHO decision, J.A. at 93).) In response, FBDS casts the substantive dispute with respect to the April 1997 IEP — whether or not a Lovaas-certified consultant was necessary to provide G a FAPE — as a dispute over the choice of educational methodology included in the IEP, an area ill-suited to judicial second-guessing. 32 After an extensive hearing, the IHO found that the April 1997 IEP was insufficient because [n]either G's current therapists nor his special education teacher during 1995-96 are presently able to adequately perform the function of ... a Lovaas consultant based on their current qualifications. (J.A. at 93.) The IHO explained that 33 the Lovaas consultant is the heart of the Lovaas program. Lovaas is not simply a methodology that any educator may employ with success, but rather, the experience, insight, and adaptability that the consultant brings to the chair are what is essential. 34 (J.A. at 93.) 35 The IHO's decision was reversed by the Appeal Board, which found that the April 1997 IEP had proposed a FAPE. The Appeal Board reasoned that the IHO had given insufficient deference to the educational professionals who created the IEP, that the IHO erred by comparing the April 1997 IEP to the Lovaas program, and that the April 1997 IEP was not merely a repetition of the May 1996 IEP, which the IHO had already found inadequate. (J.A. at 126-27.) The district court affirmed the Appeal Board's decision, finding that the April 1997 IEP proposed a FAPE because it reflected significant modifications and changes made to express concerns expressed by [G's] mother, including an increase in the number of Pre-Academic Skills Goals listed. (J.A. at 182-83.) Neither the Appeal Board nor the district court considered evidence apart from that assessed in the first instance by the IHO. 36 While we ordinarily would owe deference to FBDS's simple assertion that it is capable of implementing the April 1997 IEP, see MM ex rel. DM v. School Dist. of Greenville County, 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002), in this case the IHO, after considering extensive evidence, concluded that FBDS personnel who were not Lovaas-certified and did not have comparable training or experience could not adequately implement the teaching methods called for in the April 1997 IEP. The IHO's determination, however, does not appear to have been based on an evaluation of the evidence under the proper standard. Rather than assessing FBDS's ability to provide G educational benefit under the April 1997 IEP, the IHO assessed FBDS's ability to replicate the complete Lovaas therapy. That is, the IHO's conclusion was premised not on an analysis of whether the April 1997 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to G, but instead on examination of whether that IEP would replicate the benefit to G of the complete Lovaas therapy, which had been successful for him. (J.A. at 93 (The April 1997 IEP does not propose to continue the complete behavioral therapy program for G although it has been proven empirically to work with G as well as some other autistic preschool-age children.... As has sometimes been observed, if it isn't broken, don't `fix' it.)); id. (noting that without the consultant, there would be no assurance that the Lovaas curriculum, including daily documentation, would be consistently followed). 37 Neither the Appeal Board nor the district court addressed FBDS's ability to implement the April 1997 IEP as proposed (that is, absent a Lovaas-certified consultant's involvement) or provided an independent assessment of the educational benefit G would receive from that IEP. This is thus an unusual case in that, even after the conclusion of the administrative process and a trial of the issues in the district court, none of the decisions below reflect a thorough assessment of the evidence under the proper standard — that is, whether the April 1997 IEP, as proposed, was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to G. Having examined the record and the parties' arguments thoroughly, we conclude that they are not sufficient to support a reasoned analysis and conclusion in this court on the issue of FBDS's ability to implement the April 1997 IEP as proposed. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment on this issue and remand for such further proceedings as are required to resolve the parties' conflict under the proper standard.