John M. v. Board of Educ. of Evanston Twp. High Sch. Dist. 202, Nos. 06-3274/06-3739 (7th Cir. Sept. 17, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that a federal district court applied an incorrect standard in holding that because a disabled Illinois student had received co-teaching in middle school, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required his high school to provide co-teaching as well. The appeals court also found that in granting the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce IDEA’s "stay-put" provision, the lower court improperly ruled on the merits of his claim that he was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA. "Stay put" generally requires that a child remain in the same educational placement pending any proceedings. When John M. made the transition from middle school to high school, his parents met with officials at Evanston Township High School (ETHS) to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for him. While in middle school John had been assigned a co-teacher, but the phrase "co-teaching" had not appeared in his middle school IEP. ETHS officials informed the parents they would not be able to provide the same sort of co-teaching but proposed what they believed to be comparable services. The parents requested an administrative hearing, where the hearing officer ruled that the proposed high school IEP complied with IDEA and that ETHS complied with the requirements of the stay-put placement. The parents sued, requesting a preliminary injunction to enforce the stay-put placement by requiring the same services John had received in middle school. The district court granted an injunction requiring ETHS to provide John with an education based on the high school IEP but with additional features, including a co-teacher. The court also addressed the merits of the claim that the IEP denied John a FAPE.
The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the lower court. The appeals court first agreed with ETHS that by addressing the underlying merits at the preliminary injunction stage, the lower court deprived the school district of its right to be heard: "[T]he School District simply was not on notice that the district court planned to address, in its consideration of that motion, the underlying merits [and] [c]onsequently, the School District did not have an adequate opportunity to submit evidence with respect to the appropriateness of the proposed high school IEP." Turning to the issue of whether the district court erred when it ruled stay-put required co-teaching, the appeals court signaled its agreement with the other federal circuit courts of appeals that because IDEA does not define the term "educational placement," the court should adopt a fact-driven approach to determining whether a school district has satisfied stay-put. Acknowledging that "the educational status quo for a ‘growing, learning’ young person often makes rigid adherence to particular educational methodologies ‘an impossibility,’" the court found that "respect for the purpose of the stay-put provision requires that the former IEP be read at a level of generality that focuses on the child’s’ educational needs and goals.’" Citing a Ninth Circuit ruling that "educational placement" requires only "comparable placement," the Seventh Circuit found that as a student progresses from elementary to middle school then from middle to high school the "status quo no longer exists" and "the obligation of the new district is to provide educational services that approximate the student’s old IEP as closely as possible." While recognizing the need for "some degree of flexibility" when interpreting the most recently agreed-upon IEP in a stay-put situation, the appeals court cautioned that "[s]uggestions for methodological change that would dilute the statute’s policy of ‘mainstreaming’ disabled children to the maximum extent appropriate deserve particular scrutiny."
The Seventh Circuit concluded with instructions to the district court for revisiting the motion for a preliminary injunction. "Even if a school has provided a particular service in the past," the court instructed, "it need not be provided in a stay-put situation if it was not within the governing IEP." Because the parties are disputing what the middle school IEP requires, the district court’s obligation is to evaluate the IEP as whole in order to determine whether the methodology of co-teaching is required under its terms. The appeals court also instructed the lower court to address the school’s argument that implementing the co-teaching in the high school environment would be impossible, rejecting the district court’s finding that the school had waived this argument when it agreed to implement the middle school IEP. "We do not believe that the record can support that finding," the appeal court held, "[because] [i]n its briefs before the district court, the School District did state explicitly that it would be "impossible" to provide co-teaching services to John due to the differing course and curriculum arrangements at the high school."
John M. v. Board of Educ. of Evanston Twp. High Sch. Dist. 202, Nos. 06-3274/06-3739 (7th Cir. Sept. 17, 2007)
[Editor’s Note: NSBA, the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Association of School Administrators, and the Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education filed an amicus brief, below, in support of the school district. The brief was written by former NSBA Council of School Attorneys chair Nancy Fredman Krent and COSA members Stephanie E. Jones and John DiJohn of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn in Arlington Heights, Illinois. See below.]
NSBA School Law pages on John M.