Opinion ID: 77196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Parents' Claim for Reimbursement in Their Federal Complaint

Text: 94 In this case, the parents' only complaint about either the first or second IEP was that each one did not provide C.M. with AVT. 13 Thus, there is no issue as to whether the School Board complied with the IDEA's procedural requirements. The sole issue is whether the two proposed IEPs, which provided for VT instead of AVT, were reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, and, thus, were sufficient to provide C.M. with a FAPE. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. 95 The ALJ determined that [w]hile there can be no question that C.[M.] has benefit[t]ed significantly from the AVT she has received from Ms. Bricker, AVT is not the only accepted and proven therapeutic methodology that can help C.[M.] become a better oral communicator and thereby `access her education.' The ALJ concluded that VT was an accepted and proven therapy and that [i]t is the School Board's prerogative, not the Parents', to choose which of these accepted and proven methodologies will be provided at public expense. Consequently, the ALJ determined that the proposed IEPs were sufficient to provide C.M. with a FAPE. 96 As an aggrieved party, C.M.'s parents filed a civil complaint in federal court asserting that they were entitled to reimbursement because the proposed IEPs did not provide C.M. with a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). However, the parents' complaint is devoted to the differences between AVT and VT, and how forcing C.M. to switch to VT was against the parents' choice of a communication mode, posed a significant risk of regression, and did not meet C.M.'s unique needs. Nowhere in the parents' complaint do they claim that VT is not a recognized and well-established form of therapy for deaf children. 97 The district court first acknowledged that it did have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the sufficiency of an IEP. However, the district court dismissed the parents' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree that the parents' complaint should have been dismissed; however, it should have been dismissed for failure to state a viable claim for relief under the IDEA, not for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 98 The dispute in this case boils down to the parents' belief that AVT is the program best suited to provide C.M. with a quality education. However, under the IDEA there is no entitlement to the best program. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 204, 102 S.Ct. at 3049 (The IEP should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.); Lachman v. Illinois Bd. of Educ., 852 F.2d 290, 297 (7th Cir.1988) ( Rowley and its progeny leave no doubt that parents, no matter how well-motivated, do not have a right under the [statute] to compel a school district to provide a specific program or employ a specific methodology in providing for the education of their handicapped child.) (citations omitted); see also Loren F., 349 F.3d at 1312 n. 1 (stating that under the IDEA, the FAPE described in the IEP need not be the best possible one) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 291 (5th Cir.2005) ( en banc ) (A FAPE need not be the best possible education nor one that will maximize the child's educational potential.) (citations omitted); White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir.2003) (Under IDEA, the FAPE need not maximize the child's potential; it must guarantee a basic floor of opportunity.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Kings Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Zelazny, 325 F.3d 724, 729 (6th Cir.2003) (stating that the IDEA does not require public schools to maximize the potential of disabled students); Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022, 1027 (8th Cir.2003) (The IDEA does not require that a school either maximize a student's potential or provide the best possible education at public expense. Instead, the requirements of the IDEA are satisfied when a school district provides individualized education and services sufficient to provide disabled children with some educational benefit.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); T.R. v. Kingwood Tp. Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572, 577 (3d Cir.2000) (The education provided [pursuant to the IDEA] must be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child, although the state is not required to maximize the potential of handicapped children.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); JSK v. Hendry County Sch. Bd., 941 F.2d 1563, 1573 (11th Cir. 1991) (While a trifle might not represent `adequate' benefits, . . . maximum improvement is never required.); Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307, 1314 (9th Cir.1987) (An `appropriate' public education does not mean the absolutely best or `potential-maximizing' education for the individual child.) (citations omitted). 99 C.M.'s parents may be correct that VT would confuse C.M. and that the classroom dynamics offered by the School Board would not be most suitable for C.M. However, C.M.'s parents never challenged the School Board's assertion, or the ALJ's conclusion, that VT is a well-recognized means by which to teach hearing-impaired children to speak. While C.M.'s parents may not want such a program, the IDEA does not grant them a right to select among various programs. Rather, the School Board offered C.M. what was required under the IDEA — a free appropriate public education. 100 Because C.M.'s parents are merely asserting that AVT is the best and most desirable method to educate C.M., they have failed to state a claim under the IDEA. The IDEA does not permit them to challenge an IEP on the grounds that it is not the best or most desirable program for their child. Consequently, we affirm the district court's dismissal but remand this case with directions for the district court to modify the dismissal as one for failure to state a viable claim for relief under the IDEA. 101 AFFIRMED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.