Parents sue, claim district failed to provide child with special education services

Parents sued a school district on behalf of their child, alleging that the district failed to properly identify the child as being eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. The district court entered judgment in favor of the district and the parents appealed.

The court of appeals began by reviewing the history of the case. From third to fifth grade, the student had a good attendance record, passed all her classes, tested average for reading fluency, and passed all but one required state assessment. In sixth grade, the student was homeschooled. 

In seventh grade, she returned to the district. Her attendance began to falter and she missed more than 10% of her classes. As her attendance dropped, she failed state-mandated exams. The district responded to her failures on the state tests and provided her with targeted intervention during eighth grade. After receiving this extra help, the student passed all her classes. However, she accumulated 25 absences during her eighth-grade year. The COVID pandemic hit at the end of her eighth-grade year, and she began ninth grade remotely. She struggled with attendance as a remote student and returned to in-person instruction after Thanksgiving.

The student was enrolled in advanced classes, and she ultimately failed them. The district recommended removing her from advanced classes and taking on-level classes, but her parents refused and decided to leave her in the advanced classes. During her ninth-grade year, the student had multiple absences and failed five of her seven classes.  

When asked if he believed that the student's frequent absences impacted her academic performance, her father testified, "of course" they did. Her teachers testified that the student did not appear to have a disability that affected her reading comprehension, but they were very concerned about her attendance issues. 

After ninth grade, the student took summer classes to make up the classes that she failed. During summer school, she passed Algebra I, English I and Biology. In tenth grade, the district recommended that she take on-level courses given her academic difficulties. Her parents declined this recommendation and enrolled the student in advanced classes. That year she missed 25 days, which caused her to continue having difficulty in class.

The district recommended that the student enroll in the Alternative Choice for Education program to get the extra help and attention she needed. She applied for and was accepted into the ACE program, but her parents did not permit her to enroll. During the student's tenth-grade year, her parents withdrew her from the district and began homeschooling.

The parents then filed a due process hearing request and informed the district that they suspected that the student had dyslexia. The district offered to conduct a full individual initial evaluation, but the parents refused to consent to the testing and had her undergo an independent evaluation. The evaluation indicated that the student did not have ADHD or dyslexia but had learning disabilities in reading comprehension, math computation and math reasoning. 

The district received the report and scheduled a committee meeting to consider an Individualized Education Plan. During the meeting, the district determined that it did not have enough information to assess the student's eligibility under IDEA because the evaluation lacked necessary information about the student's performance in the school setting.

The parents argued in the due process hearing that the district had failed to fulfill its Child Find obligations to identify her as in need of special education services. Following a hearing, the special education hearing officer issued an order in favor of the district and the parents appealed to district court, which upheld the hearing officer's decision. The district court found that the school district satisfied its Child Find obligation, the student did not qualify for special education, and her educational issues were primarily linked to her poor attendance record.

IDEA mandates schools to make a free and appropriate public education available to children with disabilities. IDEA advances its policy goals by imposing a Child Find obligation that requires a school district to identify, locate and evaluate students with suspected disabilities within a reasonable time.

In this case, the parents argued that the student's poor academic performance and attendance triggered the district's Child Find obligation. However, the court of appeals disagreed, noting that the absences were not caused by behavior issues, psychological problems, or serious health concerns, which might have put the district on notice that the student suffered from a disability. 

Instead, the parents frequently excused the student's absences for reasons such as family travel or benign medical issues. The court of appeals also found that the student's poor academic record did not trigger the district's Child Find obligation, because when she attended school consistently, she did well. 

The court of appeals upheld the decision of the district court and ruled in favor of the district.