Hill v. Dist. of Columbia

SYLVIA HILL et al. Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-1893 (GMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

August 26, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this action, Plaintiff Sylvia Hill and her son, Plaintiff "R.H." (together, referred to as "Plaintiffs"), seek reversal of the administrative hearing officer's determination, issued on August 12, 2014, denying all of their requested relief. They initiated this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEA"), alleging that the District of Columbia Public School System ("DCPS") denied R.H. a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"). Following the parties' consent to the undersigned's authority, this matter was referred to this Court for all purposes. Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon review of the record,¹ the Court will grant in part Plaintiffs' motion and deny DCPS' motion.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff R.H.

R.H. is a nineteen-year-old student with a specific learning disability relating to academic performance and social-emotional functioning. AR 59.² During the 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 school years, R.H. attended Eastern Senior High School ("Eastern"), a District of Columbia Public School. Compl. ¶ 8. This case concerns only the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, during which R.H. was enrolled in the ninth grade. He and his family were homeless from 2011-2013, AR 149, until they obtained housing within Eastern's enrollment boundary, see id. at 112. During the school years at issue, R.H. exhibited chronic absenteeism and academic underperformance. See e.g., id. at 97 (failing Algebra I during the 2012-2013 school year because "[R.H.] did not complete the final exam . . . and he had 106 absences"), 118 (failing Public Policy during the 2013-2014 school year because "[R.H.] only comes 1 day a week and [the class] meets daily"). By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, R.H. had failed the ninth grade for the third consecutive year. Compl. ¶ 9.

B. Plaintiffs' Due Process Complaint

On May 16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an administrative due process complaint, alleging that DCPS violated R.H.'s right to a FAPE. AR 192. Plaintiffs raised ten separate issues in their complaint, including DCPS' alleged failure to: (1) provide access to R.H.'s school records; (2) perform a comprehensive evaluation of R.H.; (3) perform comprehensive re-evaluations of R.H. upon Ms. Hill's request; (4) conduct a complete functional behavior assessment ("FBA")³ ofR.H.; (5) timely authorize an independent educational evaluation ("IEE"); (6) review existing evaluations to develop R.H.'s individualized education programs ("IEPs"); (7) develop appropriate IEPs based on R.H.'s educational needs; (8) properly implement R.H.'s IEPs; (9) provide an appropriate placement; and (10) include Ms. Hill in the IEP decision making process. Id. Plaintiffs' proposed remedies included a declaration that DCPS denied R.H. a FAPE; an order for DCPS to fund R.H.'s placement at New Beginnings Vocational School ("New Beginnings"); and an order to convene a new IEP meeting to review available evaluations, request funding for additional IEEs, and determine appropriate compensatory education for R.H. Id. at 202-03.⁴

C. The Administrative Record

On August 6, 2014, a due process hearing was held before a hearing officer. Id. at 443-785. Several days later, the hearing officer issued her hearing officer's determination ("HOD"), denying all of Plaintiffs' requested relief. Id. at 3-13. This HOD was based on evidence in the academic record, including R.H.'s IEPs, multiple evaluations, Plaintiffs' representations, and testimony from special education experts. See id. The relevant portions of the administrative record are recounted below.

1. January 2013 IEP

On December 11, 2012, a multidisciplinary team ("MDT") met to discuss R.H.'s academic status at Eastern. Id. at 23. During this meeting, Ms. Hill participated telephonically, and her legal representative and advocate, Jazmone Taylor, attended in person. Id. The rest ofthe MDT consisted of James Robinson, who represented the local educational agency ("LEA"); Travis Cox, R.H.'s case manager; and a social worker. Id. The team discussed R.H.'s inconsistent attendance, his academic standing, his school uniform, and the availability of transportation to and from school. Id. The team created an attendance plan, encouraging R.H. to remain after school for extracurricular activities. Id. Further, it confirmed that R.H. "is receiving transportation every month from Mr. [LaVaughn] Turner," and arranged for Mr. Cox to "ask teachers to provide work packet[s] for [the] first 3 weeks of school." Id. Finally, the team arranged for R.H. to wash his uniform at school. Id.

Following the MDT meeting, Mr. Cox telephoned Ms. Hill to notify her about R.H.'s upcoming IEP meeting on January 11, 2013, to which Ms. Hill responded that she would attend. Id. at 25. Mr. Cox also informed R.H. to attend school "so that [Mr. Cox] could test him for the IEP." Id. On January 7, 2013, Mr. Cox sent R.H. home with a draft IEP so that Ms. Hill could participate in the meeting by phone. Id. at 30. Plaintiffs ultimately did not attend or directly participate in this meeting, though Ms. Taylor, their educational advocate, attended in person. Id. at 37. The IEP meeting was held on January 11, 2013, to update R.H.'s IEP goals in light of the results from recent academic and vocational assessments. Id. at 35. Attendees included a general education teacher; a social worker; Mr. Robinson, the LEA representative; and Mr. Cox, who interpreted R.H.'s evaluation results and served as the team's special education teacher. Id. at 37.

This IEP diagnosed R.H. with a "specific learning disability," ⁵ prescribed annual goals for three academic areas of concern - including mathematics, reading, and writing - and outlineda post-secondary transition plan for R.H. Id. at 42-54. Baselines for R.H.'s academic areas of concern were developed from the results of his Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement ("WJ-III ACH") from December 18, 2012. Id. at 42-45.⁶ First, R.H.'s math score placed him in the "low range," showing that "he lacks some foundational math skills." Id. at 42. Specifically, R.H. obtained (1) a "low" broad math standard score ("SS") of 70, which correlates to a grade equivalence ("GE") of 4.7; (2) a "very low" calculation SS of 63, which correlates to a GE of 3.8; (3) a "very low" math fluency SS of 67, which correlates to a GE of 3.9; and (4) an "average" applied problems SS of 90, which correlates to a GE of 6.6. Id. The IEP further noted R.H.'s poor Algebra I attendance, which prevented him from "develop[ing] higher order math skills," so R.H.'s mathematics goals in this IEP were "to correctly borrow in double-digit subtraction[,] . . . multiply a double-digit number by a single-digit number[,] . . . [and] add fractions" with at least 80% proficiency. Id. at 42-43.

Second, R.H.'s reading score was in the "low range," showing a "basic ability to read and comprehend information" and a weakness for decoding unfamiliar words and sounds. Id. at 43. In particular, R.H. received (1) a "low" broad reading SS of 76, which correlates to a GE of 5.2; (2) a "low" letter-word identification SS of 74, which correlates to a GE of 4.8; (3) a reading fluency SS of 76, which correlates to a GE of 5.0; and (4) an "average" passage comprehension SS of 90, which correlates to a GE of 6.7. Id. According to the IEP, R.H.'s weakness in thisarea "makes it difficult for [him] to read and process passages." Id. Thus, R.H.'s reading goals included correctly decoding unfamiliar words at his reading level, using context clues to determine the meaning of those words, and independently reading passages and using context to make accurate inferences, all with at least 80% proficiency. Id. at 43-44.

Finally, R.H. scored in the "very low range" for written expression, highlighting weaknesses with syntax, grammar, handwriting, and particularly with spelling. Id. at 45. According to the WJ-III ACH, R.H. received (1) a "very low" broad writing SS of 62, which correlates to a GE of 3.4; (2) a "low" writing fluency SS of 70, which correlates to a GE of 3.9; (3) a "low" writing samples SS of 76, which correlates to a GE of 4.6; and (4) a "very low" spelling SS of 63, which correlates to a GE of 2.9. Id. The IEP prescribed goals for R.H. to correctly use spelling rules during graded assignments and accurately capitalize and punctuate sentences with at least 80% proficiency. Id. at 45-46.

The IEP's post-secondary transition plan for R.H. was based on his reported interests as well as the results of his WJ-III ACH and BRIGANCE E-2 assessments - both administered on December 18, 2012. Id. at 50.⁷ R.H. reported that he was interested in employment as a mechanic, a construction worker, and a photographer. Id. R.H.'s WJ-III ACH results, described above, indicated that he required additional development of necessary skills to manage a personal budget. Id. The BRIGANCE E-2 assessment revealed that R.H. prefers an outdoor, noisy working environment that requires physical energy, use of hands, and substantial training. Id. Using that information, the IEP prescribed goals for R.H.'s post-secondary education,employment, and independent living. Id. at 51-53. In anticipation of receiving post-secondary technical training, R.H.'s goal was to research technical training programs, for which school officials would provide guidance for one hour during the year. Id. at 51. To achieve full-time employment, R.H.'s goal was to conduct information interviews with mechanics regarding their education and skill requirements, and the school agreed to assist R.H. with interview practice for one hour per month. Id. at 52. As for properly maintaining a budget upon graduating, R.H.'s goal was to work with teachers for one hour per year to ascertain the categories of...