Opinion ID: 4566339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The IDEA And Its Evaluation Procedures

Text: The IDEA seeks to ensure that states provide a “free appropriate public education” (a “FAPE”) to all eligible children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). “A FAPE, as the Act defines it, includes both ‘special education’ and ‘related services,’” which refer to the individually tailored classroom instruction and non-academic support services that the child receives at school. Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 994 (2017) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)). A child with a disability receives this tailored instruction and support through their individualized education program (“IEP”). An IEP must include a statement of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance, the child’s academic and functional goals, how the child’s disability affects their progress towards achieving those goals, how the child’s progress will be 6 measured, and the services that will be provided to help the child succeed at school. See id. (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(III)). As such, the IEP is “the centerpiece of the [IDEA’s] education delivery system for disabled children.” Id. (citation omitted). Each child’s IEP is developed by their “IEP Team,” which is comprised of teachers, school representatives, and the child’s parents or guardians. Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)). Indeed, “[p]arents and guardians play a significant role in the IEP process,” as “[t]hey must be informed about and consent to evaluations of their child under the Act,” “[t]hey have the right to examine any records relating to their child,” “[t]hey must be given written prior notice of any changes in an IEP and be notified in writing of the procedural safeguards available to them under the Act,” and “[i]f parents believe that an IEP is not appropriate,” they may seek an administrative hearing on the matter. Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53 (2005) (internal citation omitted). A child’s IEP is based in significant part on the results of statutorily mandated evaluations of the child. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A)(ii), (c)(1)–(2), (d)(3)(A), (d)(4)(A). Under the IDEA, a child with a suspected disability must receive a “full and individual initial evaluation” to determine the existence and 7 extent of their disability and whether they are entitled to special education and related services under the Act. Id. § 1414(a)(1). The child is further entitled to a “reevaluation” at least once every three years for the purpose of updating their IEP. 1 Id. § 1414(a)(2), (d)(4)(a). Because it occurs by default every three years, this is generally referred to as a triennial reevaluation (a term we’ll employ throughout this decision). The IDEA requires that a child’s initial evaluation and triennial reevaluations be comprehensive. In conducting these evaluations, a school must “use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information,” id. § 1414(b)(2)(A), and the school must assess the child in “all areas of suspected disability,” id. § 1414(b)(3)(B). The child’s IEP Team takes the results of these evaluations and regularly collaborates to develop, maintain, and update the child’s IEP over the course of their education. See id. § 1414(d)(4)(A) (a child’s IEP Team must review their IEP “periodically, but 1As the hearing officer succinctly put it: “The IDEA provides for reevaluations to be conducted not more frequently than once a year unless the parent and school district agree otherwise, but at least once every three years unless the parent and school district agree that a reevaluation is not necessary.” J.A. 789 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)). 8 not less frequently than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved”). As another procedural safeguard, the parent of a child with a disability has an absolute right to obtain an IEE of their child, 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(1), and the school must consider that IEE “in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child,” id. § 300.502(c)(1). An IEE is defined in the IDEA’s implementing regulations as “an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question.” Id. § 300.502(a)(3)(i). Though this IEE right is unfettered by statute, it is practically constrained by the parent’s ability or desire to pay for an IEE. Nevertheless, there is a limited circumstance in which a parent may seek an IEE at public expense. 2 A parent is entitled to a publicly funded IEE “if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency.” Id. § 300.502(b)(1). If a parent disagrees with an evaluation and requests an IEE at public expense, “the public agency must, 2 “Public expense means that the public agency either pays for the full cost of the evaluation or ensures that the evaluation is otherwise provided at no cost to the parent.” Id. § 300.502(a)(3)(ii). 9 without unnecessary delay, either [] [f]ile a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate,” or “[e]nsure that an [IEE] is provided at public expense.” Id. § 300.502(b)(2). 3 The IEE process attempts to level the playing field between parent and government by securing a parent’s ability to obtain an independent assessment of their child’s disability if the school’s falls short. It provides “parents access to an expert who can evaluate all the materials that the school must make available, and who can give an independent opinion,” and it ensures that parents “are not left to challenge the government without a realistic opportunity to access the necessary evidence, or without an expert with the firepower to match the opposition.” Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 60–61. That said, other than defining an IEE as an “evaluation” conducted by someone independent from the school and explaining that an IEE at public expense is available when a parent disagrees with an “evaluation” obtained by the school, neither the IDEA nor its implementing regulations articulates with 3The IDEA and its implementing regulations govern state and local public educational agencies that receive federal assistance for the education of children with disabilities, which is why the Board is the defendant in this case as opposed to D.S.’s school itself. For ease of reference, however, we will refer to the “public agency” responsible for a child’s education as their school. 10 specificity what constitutes an “evaluation.” D.S.’s case requires us to answer that question.