Edward M.-R. v. Dist. of Columbia

660 F.Supp.3d 82

EDWARD M.-R., BY AND THROUGH his Parents, T.R.-M. and E.M., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-177 (RDM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

Signed September 29, 2023

Caitlin E. McAndrews, McAndrews Law Offices, PC, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Veronica A. Porter, Office of the Attorney General for D.C., Washington D.C., DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs T.R.-M. and E.M. bring this action on behalf of their son, Edward M.-R., who has multiple disabilities, including Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), to challenge the adequacy of the education that Edward received while attending District of Columbia Public Schools ("DCPS"). Specifically, they contend that the Individualized Educational Programs ("IEPs") prepared on Edward's behalf were "insufficient to appropriately meet his needs for several years," Dkt. 18-1 at 3, and that, as a result, he was deprived of the free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") to which he was entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

After a hearing officer issued a determination denying Plaintiffs' administrative relief, Plaintiffs filed this suit. Both parties moved for summary judgment, Dkt. 29, Dkt. 35, and Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey, having been referred the case, issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the Court grant summary judgment to the District of Columbia on all claims, Dkt. 43. Plaintiffs objected to the R&R on several grounds, and it is those objections that are before the Court. Dkt. 44. For the reasons that follow, the Court will ADOPT the R&R and will GRANT summary judgment in favor of the District on all claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Background

Congress enacted the IDEA to "ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). To that end, "the IDEA mandates that states receiving federal educational funding, including the District of Columbia, ... establish 'policies and procedures to ensure,' among other things, that a 'free appropriate public education' ('FAPE') is available to children with disabilities." Herrion v. District of Columbia, No. 20-3470, 2023 WL 2643881, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2023) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)). The guarantee of a FAPE includes a promise to provide "special education and related services designed to meet [a child's] unique needs and [to] prepare [the child] for further education, employment, and independent living." Id. (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)).

Mechanically, the provision of a FAPE works through the creation and administration of an "individualized education program," or "IEP." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A). The IEP is "the centerpiece of the statute's education delivery system for disabled children." Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988). A child who is eligible for special education and services under the IDEA receives an IEP that sets forth "a comprehensive statement of the educational needs of [the] ... child." Leonard v. McKenzie, 869 F.2d 1558, 1560 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quoting Sch. Comm. of the Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 368, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985)). "Prepared by an 'IEP Team'—composed of the child's parents or guardians, the child's teacher, a representative of a local educational agency and, whenever appropriate, the child"—an IEP "sets out the child's present academic and functional performance, establishes measurable academic and functional goals for the child, and states the special education and related services that will be provided for the child." Middleton v. District of Columbia, 312 F. Supp. 3d 113, 121 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A), (B)). "The IEP Team must review the child's IEP at least annually and may revise it as appropriate to address the child's anticipated needs." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A).

"To assist in determining whether a student 'is a child with a disability' and in developing 'the content of the child's [IEP],' a local educational agency must conduct an 'initial evaluation' using 'a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, development, and academic information, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in [making the relevant] determin[ations].'" Herrion, 2023 WL 2643881, at *2 (alterations in original) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A)). "After the initial evaluation, each child must be reevaluated if the local educational agency determines it is necessary or if the child's parents or teacher request such a reevaluation." Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)). "The reevaluation shall take place 'not more frequently than once a year, unless the parent and the local educational agency agree otherwise' and must be done 'at least once every three years' unless the parents and local educational agency agree it is unnecessary." Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B)).

The purpose of the IEP is to ensure that the child's substantive right to a FAPE is satisfied. See Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 201-04, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). "[A] child has received a FAPE, if the child's IEP sets out an educational program that is 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.'" Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 394, 137 S.Ct. 988, 197 L.Ed.2d 335 (2017) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207, 102 S.Ct. 3034). In other words, "[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 399, 137 S.Ct. 988. "To the maximum extent appropriate," the school must educate the child in the "[l]east restrictive environment," which generally means "with children who are not disabled." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).

If the public agency fails to provide a child with a FAPE, the child's parents may file an administrative complaint, often referred to as a "due process complaint." Herrion, 2023 WL 2643881, at *3 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(B), (c)(2)). "Whenever [such] a complaint has been received ... [,] the parents ... shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing" conducted by the state or local educational agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(A). "At that hearing, the parties may present evidence and elicit expert testimony about the child's educational and functional needs." Herrion, 2023 WL 2643881, at *3 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(2)). In general, the hearing officer's decision "shall be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the child received a free appropriate public education," although parents may also assert claims based on procedural violations. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i). Parents "aggrieved by" the hearing officer's decision may seek review in the appropriate federal district court, "without regard to the amount in controversy," as Edward's parents have done here. Id. § 1415(i)(2)(A); see also Calloway v. District of Columbia, 216 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

B. Factual Background

Judge Harvey's R&R provides a thorough description of Edward's educational history and the events that led to this case. See Dkt. 43. The Court need not repeat that exposition here and, instead, summarizes only those facts relevant to Plaintiffs' objections to his R&R.

Edward was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder as a toddler and has received special education services from the District of Columbia ever since. Dkt. 15-2 at 18 (A.R. 63). He has also been diagnosed with ADHD. See Dkt. 16-1 at 30 (A.R. 226).

In the fall of 2016, the DCPS performed a "psychological evaluation" of Edward as part of the triennial review process mandated by the IDEA. Id. at 1 (A.R. 197). That report describes Edward as "display[ing] variable below grade level academic achievement, Extremely Low cognitive skills, communications difficulties, social interaction/social skills deficits, atypical and stereotyped behaviors, and significantly distracted and off-task learning behavior." Id. at 30 (A.R. 226). The report also "notes marked impairment in age-appropriate communicative functioning, marked impairment in age-appropriate social functioning, and marked impairment in age-appropriate personal functioning." Id. Edward's parents and teacher reported that he "displays significant weaknesses in ... initiating and sustaining attention, inhibiting impulsive responses, sustaining working memory, learning, planning, and organizing his environment/materials, difficulty with friendships, and poor/limited social skills." Id.

The evaluator recommended "continued placement in a small structured academic and behavioral program that has a low student-to-teacher ratio and employs multiple presentation forms to include visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile modalities." Id. at 31 (A.R. 227). The evaluator also recommended that emphasis should be placed on increasing both his "functional literacy skills" as well as his "basic math skills (i.e., telling time, addition/subtraction, using money)." Id. And, in light of Edward's difficulties with attention and working memory, the evaluator recommended "provid[ing] modeling and frequent repetition of material whenever possible" and "[p]roviding a visual chart of steps required to complete a task [to] serve as an external memory support." Id.

During the 2017-2018 school year, Edward was enrolled as a fifth-grade student at Hearst Elementary School. See Dkt. 16-3 at 58 (A.R. 320). Edward's IEP for that year noted that he "received specialized instruction in the intermediate self-contained Communication and...