EDUCATION LAW- IDEA ELIGIBILITY: HINDSIGHT IS 20/20- LISA M. EX REL. J.M. V. LEANDER INDEP. SCH. DIST., 924 F.3D 205 (5TH CIR. 2019).

• Author: Doneen, Sydney
• Position: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act enforcement

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") was passed by Congress "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education." (1) The IDEA provides special education services to children who need them. (2) To receive these services the child must: (1) have a qualifying disability and (2) need special education services to thrive due to said disability. (3) If it is determined that a child has a qualified disability and is in need of special education services, the school district must construct an individualized education program ("IEP") outlining how these services will be delivered. (4) A parent who is dissatisfied with a school district's evaluation or IEP may request a due process hearing before an impartial hearing officer. (5) Parties who wish to appeal the decision of the hearing officer may subsequently seek relief in the federal courts. (6)

District courts tasked with reviewing a hearing officer's decision will review the administrative record and reach an independent decision as to the child's IDEA eligibility. (7) Circuit courts reviewing a district court's findings of fact apply a clear error standard of review, however. (8) In applying this standard, a circuit court must determine whether it will consider events that occurred after the school district's initial determination ("hindsight review") or only the information available to the district at the time of its initial determination ("contemporaneous review"). (9) Due to a lack of statutory guidance, courts are currently split on the issue. (10) In Lisa M. ex rel. J.M. v. Leander Indep. Sch. Dist., (11) the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit incorrectly utilized a contemporaneous framework of review, further solidifying a circuit split in this area of law. (12)

When J.M. was a second-grade student in the Leander Independent School District, he experienced challenges at school related to writing and classroom behavior. (13) Later that year, J.M. was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Developmental Coordination Disorder. (14) During the summer before J.M.'s fourth grade year, his parents requested the school evaluate him for special education services under the IDEA. (15) The school district denied the parents' request for IDEA services, claiming that the services provided to J.M. via the Rehabilitation Act were sufficient. (16) One month after the denial of IDEA services, a private neuropsychologist diagnosed J.M. with a Specific Learning Disability with particular impairment in written expression. (17)

In October of J.M.'s fourth-grade year, in order to determine if J.M. is eligible for special education services under the IDEA, the district scheduled a review of existing evaluation data ("REED") to establish whether J.M. qualified for a full and individual evaluation. (18) The school district determined that J.M. qualified for a full and individual evaluation ("FIE"), and he subsequently received a drafted IEP, subject to change upon parental input. (19) After reviewing J.M.'s drafted IEP, his mother requested an additional ten minutes of specialized writing instruction per day; however, ten days after this request, the district informed J.M.'s parents that they no longer believed J.M. was eligible for special education. (20) J.M.'s parents accused the school district administrators of pressuring teachers to down-play their concerns during a secret meeting held sometime between January 25th and February 23rd, and requested a due process hearing before a Special Education Hearing Officer (SEHO) to re-establish J.M.'s eligibility for special education. (21) The SEHO ultimately found that J.M. was eligible for special education services and ordered the District to revise the existing IEP as originally planned. (22)

In accordance with IDEA procedures, J.M.'s parents filed a complaint in federal district court to receive attorney fees and the district answered with a counterclaim challenging the SEHO's conclusions as to J.M.'s eligibility. (23) The district court granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of J.M.'s parents and the school district appealed, arguing against J.M.'s need for special education. (24) Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in holding that J.M. met eligibility criteria for special education. (25)

In 1975, Congress passed the IDEA to combat the discrimination faced by children with disabilities in the American public school system. (26) Under the IDEA, school districts are responsible for conducting an FIE before a student is granted special education services. (27) In order to establish IDEA eligibility under an FIE, it must be determined: "(1) whether the child has a qualifying disability, and (2) whether, by reason of that disability, that child needs IDEA services." (28) Although it is the school district's responsibility to conduct the FIE and a REED, the student's teachers, medical professionals, and parents present evidence of the student's academic success or failure so the school can make an informed decision. (29) After the FIE and REED are completed, a team of qualified professionals ("committee") will determine whether the student is granted or denied special education services under the IDEA. (30) If this committee finds the student eligible for special education services, an IEP will be created to promote the student's academic success. (31) If a parent is dissatisfied with the services their child receives, they may file a due process complaint and request an informal meeting with the school district to discuss their grievances; if the parents' dissatisfaction continues, they may pursue relief in an administrative due process hearing held before an impartial Special Education Hearing Officer (SEHO). (32)

Once an IDEA case makes its way to federal district court, the review is "virtually de novo," meaning that the court gives due weight to the SEHO's determinations provided the hearing officer came to an independent conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence. (33) The district court will grant summary judgment in favor of the school when there has been compliance with the procedures prescribed under the IDEA. (34) If the district court's decision is appealed, the appellate court will review the decision as a mixed question of law and fact. (35) Judicial review of IDEA complaints is unique and, because Congress generally defers to state and local school officials, the role of the judiciary is purposefully limited, leading to various conflicting interpretations. (36) Due to the legislative nature of the IDEA and the lack of clearly defined terms, circuit courts have developed two different standards of review for predominant questions of fact when assessing a child's eligibility for special education services under the IDEA. (37)

Courts are split as to whether they should assess IDEA eligibility under a hindsight standard or under a contemporaneous standard. (38) Under the contemporaneous standard of review, courts only review the facts that were available to the committee at the time of the original eligibility decision, adhering to the de novo review used by the district courts. (39) Circuits using the hindsight standard of review allow the admission of additional evidence to make an independent and current assessment of the child's need for special...