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

Heading: Whether Courtney Was Erroneously Found Ineligible for Special Education

Text: A procedural violation of IDEA is harmless unless it deprives the child of an educational opportunity. See R.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2007). A child experiences an egregious loss of educational opportunity when she is erroneously denied eligibility for special education services. Cf. T.A., 129 S.Ct. at 2495 (It would be particularly strange for the Act to provide a remedy, as all agree it does, when a school district offers a child inadequate special education services but to leave parents without relief in the more egregious situation in which the school district unreasonably denies a child access to services altogether.). Thus, our next task is to determine whether Hawaii DOE's unlawful regulations, which require use of the severe discrepancy model, resulted in an improper special education eligibility determination. Hawaii DOE eventually amended the unlawful regulations applied at Courtney's eligibility meeting to conform with federal law. Haw.Code R. § 8-60-41(a)(1)-(2). Under these new, conforming regulations, an evaluation team may find a student eligible for special education under the specific learning disability classification if: (1) (A) The student does not achieve adequately for the student's age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the student's age or State-approved grade-level standards: (i) Oral expression; (ii) Listening comprehension; (iii) Written expression; (iv) Basic reading skill (including phonemic awareness, phonics, and/or vocabulary); (v) Reading fluency skills; (vi) Reading comprehension; (vii) Mathematics calculation; (viii) Mathematics problem solving; or (B) The student demonstrates a severe discrepancy between actual achievement and intellectual ability by a difference of at least one and one-half standard deviations in one or more of the areas in subparagraph (A); and (2) (A) The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (1)(A) when using a process based on the student's response to scientific, research-based intervention; or (B) The student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments.... Haw.Code R. § 8-60-41(a)(1)-(2). Unlike Hawaii's prior regulations, these new regulations do not require a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement. Moreover, these new regulations permit use of the response to intervention model. Id. Under Hawaii's new regulations, a child will be deemed eligible for special education under the specific learning disability classification if she satisfies two sets of criteria. First, the child must demonstrate either (1) inadequate achievement, or (2) a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability. Id. Second, the child must demonstrate either (1) insufficient progress, or (2) a pattern of strengths or weaknesses in performance consistent with a specific learning disability. Id. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) provides that a court should base its decision with respect to a child's eligibility on the preponderance of the evidence. The district court is the traditional forum in which facts are assessed and evidence is weighed, as it has the ability to delve deeply into factual records and, where necessary, conduct evidentiary hearings. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 402-03, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (noting, in the context of Rule 11, that the district court is better situated than the court of appeals to marshal the pertinent facts and apply the fact-dependent legal standard); In re Bradford, 112 B.R. 347, 352 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)) (The trial judge's major role is the determination of fact, and with experience in fulfilling that role comes expertise.). Therefore, the district court is the appropriate authority to assess and reach a conclusion as to Courtney's eligibility for special education under the specific learning disability classification, a primarily fact-based inquiry. Accordingly, this court hereby remands this case back to the district court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether Courtney would be eligible for special education under the specific learning disability classification.