1st Circuit turns back effort to expand IDEA requirements.

Byline: Pat Murphy

The parents of a child with borderline intellectual functioning were not entitled to reimbursement for three years of private special education costs incurred after they rejected individualized programs offered by a public school district in Massachusetts pursuant to federal law, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found.

The parents argued that the individualized education programs prepared by the school district for their child did not fulfill the requirement of a "free appropriate public education" or FAPE under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

More specifically, they contended that the school district was liable for their private education costs because the proposed IEPs failed to provide an "appropriately ambitious" and "challenging" course of instruction, additional factors they asserted the U.S. Supreme Court recognized for consideration in its 2017 decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1.

But the 1st Circuit concluded that Endrew F. did not overturn the 1st Circuit's existing precedent for determining whether a proposed IEP amounts to a FAPE. Rather, the court concluded that circuit precedent was consistent with Endrew F. on that point.

"Under both Endrew F. and our precedent, a court evaluating whether an IEP offers a FAPE must determine whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit in light of the child's circumstances," Judge Sandra L. Lynch wrote for the unanimous panel. "Depending on context, determining whether an IEP is reasonably calculated to offer meaningful progress may or may not require a sub-inquiry into how challenging the plan is."

In affirming a decision by U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, the 1st Circuit panel also rejected the parents' invitation to adopt a 5th Circuit test for determining whether an IEP satisfies the federal statute's "least restrictive environment" standard.

The 24-page decision is C.D., et al. v. Natick Public School District, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 01-128-19. The full text of the ruling can be found here.

Ripe for review?

Felicia S. Vasudevan, who represents defendant Natick Public School District, said the case is important because it solidifies the standard that the 1st Circuit uses for "least restrictive environment" and in terms of what constitutes transition assessment and transition planning.

Vasudevan, of Quincy, Massachusetts, credited the 1st Circuit for reaffirming the...