UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MR. and MRS. B., Parents of T.B., : Plaintiffs, :
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 3:06-cv-00217 (VLB) NEWTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION, : Defendant. : March 20, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD [Docs. #25, 34]
Before the Court is an action analogous to an administrative appeal. The
plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. B., parents of T.B. (“parents”), challenge the decision of
the Connecticut Department of Education denying their claim to reimbursement
for the cost of T.B.’s private school education. The parents filed this action
against the defendant, the Newtown Board of Education (“board”), pursuant to
the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et
seq. The parents contend that the board improperly determined that T.B. was
ineligible for special education and that the board should have reimbursed them
for T.B.’s private schooling. A hearing officer for the Connecticut Department of
Education rejected the parents’ arguments, and the parents now claim that the
hearing officer made erroneous factual findings and misapplied the law. The
parents and the board have both filed motions for judgment on the administrative
record. For the reasons given below, the parents’ motion is DENIED and the
board’s motion is GRANTED.
The following facts, as found by the hearing officer, are relevant to the
parties’ motions for judgment. The parents home-schooled T.B. through the end
of T.B.’s eighth grade year in 2003. Believing T.B. had a learning disability, the
parents asked a school psychologist to evaluate T.B. The psychologist made
several recommendations regarding the optimal learning environment for T.B.,
including small group instruction, extra time on tests, and frequent review and
repetition.
In May 2003, the parents asked the board to arrange a planning and
placement team (PPT) meeting to develop an educational program for T.B. to
begin in September 2003 at the board’s high school. The PPT meeting was held
on June 13, 2003 and then was continued to July 15, 2003, at which time the
board recommended that T.B. receive extra reading and writing instruction at the
high school. The board planned to test T.B. in September 2003 and also
proposed to reevaluate T.B. after determining whether the extra instruction was
effective.
On August 25, 2003, the parents informed the board that they had decided
to place T.B. at Trinity Pawling, a private school in New York. Trinity Pawling
offers an educational program featuring evening availability of teachers, extra
time on tests, and assignments that take each student’s learning needs into
account. The parents nonetheless followed through with the board’s testing of
T.B., but they rescheduled it from September to November 2003. The testing
revealed that although T.B.’s scores were in the average range, T.B. would
2
benefit from extra time on assignments and access to a spell checker. The PPT
meeting resumed on January 16, 2004 and then was continued to January 30,
2004, in order to allow time for the team to review records of T.B.’s progress at
Trinity Pawling. After reviewing the records, the board determined that T.B. was
ineligible for special education because T.B.’s record at Trinity Pawling showed
that T.B. had responded well to the type of instruction that the board had
recommended T.B. receive at the board’s high school.
The parents disagreed with the board’s determination and scheduled a
further evaluation of T.B. by Robert Kruger, a psychologist, in summer 2004. The
PPT meeting resumed on May 20, 2005, in order to review Kruger’s evaluation
and T.B.’s two full years of work at Trinity Pawling. The board again found that
T.B. was ineligible for special education because of the progress that T.B. had
achieved through exposure to the type of instruction that the board
recommended T.B. receive at the board’s high school.
The parents thereafter requested a due process hearing from the
Connecticut Department of Education. The hearing was held over four days in
September and October 2005 and included testimony by Mrs. B.; Kruger; Michael
Regan, the board’s director of pupil services; and Gregory Carpiniello, the dean
of residential life at Trinity Pawling. The hearing officer issued her decision on
December 28, 2005, finding in favor of the board on all of the issues. The parents
then filed this action.
3
The Court sets forth the standard of review that applies to this case. “In
reviewing the administrative proceedings, it is critical to recall that IDEA's
statutory scheme requires substantial deference to state administrative bodies
on matters of educational policy. . . . Although the district court must engage in
an independent review of the administrative record and make a determination
based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Supreme Court has cautioned
that such review is by no means an invitation to the courts to substitute their own
notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which
they review. . . . [W]hile federal courts do not simply rubber stamp administrative
decisions, they are expected to give due weight to these proceedings, mindful
that the judiciary generally lacks the specialized knowledge and experience
necessary to resolve persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.”
Cerra v. Pawling Central School Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2005).
“To determine whether parents who sue under IDEA to challenge a
proposed [individualized education program (IEP)] are entitled to private school
tuition reimbursement, [the Court] engage[s] in a three step process. The first
two steps focus on whether the proposed IEP was inadequate to afford the child
an appropriate public education. . . . First, [the Court] examine[s] whether the
state has complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA. . . . Second, [the
Court] consider[s] whether the IEP developed through the [IDEA's] procedures
[is] reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. . . .
If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations
4
imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more. . . . If, however, the
IEP is procedurally or substantively deficient, [the Court] proceed[s] to the third
step and ask[s] whether the private schooling obtained by the parents is
appropriate to the child's needs.” Id. at 192.
The parents first claim that the board failed to comply with the procedures
set forth in the IDEA because the board improperly (1) relied on Regan as its only
witness in presenting its case at the hearing; (2) delayed the PPT meetings and
T.B.’s evaluation process, thereby failing to have an IEP in place by the first day
of school in September 2003; (3) combined the minutes from the two PPT
meetings in January 2004 into the IEP; and (4) did not observe T.B. in a
classroom setting.
As to the board’s alleged reliance on Regan as its sole witness, the plaintiff
cites and this Court has found no authority supporting the proposition that the
Court has the power to prescribe the manner in which a party must present its
case. Whether the board decided to call one witness or ten is not significant; it is
the quality and not the quantity of evidence that matters. It is the duty of the
hearing officer as the trier of fact to consider the evidence presented by both
parties and to weigh it in order to reach a finding. The parents essentially argue
that the hearing officer should have assigned more weight to the testimony of
Mrs. B. and Kruger than to Regan. However, “a hearing officer has discretion to
weigh the conflicting testimony of the parties’ respective witnesses.” B.L. v. New
Britain Board of Education, 394 F. Supp. 2d 522, 537 (D. Conn. 2005). The Court
5
may not “[choose] between the views of conflicting experts on a controversial
issue of educational policy . . . in direct contradiction of the opinions of state
administrative officers who had heard the same evidence.” Grim v. Rhinebeck
Central School Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 383 (2d Cir. 2003).
As to the board’s alleged delay and failure to finish the IEP by the first day
of school in September 2003, the hearing officer found that the parents had first
requested a PPT meeting in May 2003. An IEP must be in place within 45 school
days pursuant to Conn. Agencies Regs. §§ 10-76d-13(a)(1) & 10-76a-1(5). It is
undisputed that there were not 45 school days between the parents’ request and
the first day of school in September 2003. Furthermore, the board did not have
an opportunity to finish evaluating T.B. in a timely manner because the parents
decided to enroll T.B. at Trinity Pawling in August 2003 and rescheduled the
board’s testing of T.B. from September to November 2003. The board’s inability
to complete the IEP by the first day of school in September 2003 was not
procedurally deficient.
As to the board’s combination of the minutes from the two PPT meetings in
January 2004 into the IEP, the parents cite no authority that the board’s action
could constitute a procedural deficiency. Similarly, the parents cite no authority
that the board’s failure to observe T.B. in a classroom setting could constitute a
procedural deficiency. As the hearing officer explained, the board’s failure could
not be viewed as harmful error because Trinity Pawling staff had contributed to
the PPT meetings, and the board therefore had access to information about T.B.’s
6
performance in a classroom. The parents have not demonstrated that the board
committed any procedural deficiencies.
The Court next turns to the substantive adequacy of the IEP, that is,
whether it was reasonably calculated to enable T.B. to receive educational
benefits. “The IDEA . . . does not require a school district to pay for a private
school education simply because that opportunity would be ideal for the student.
It requires only that a school board provide each student . . . a basic opportunity
to receive an educational benefit.” A.E. v. Westport Board of Education, 463 F.
Supp. 2d 208, 221 (D. Conn. 2006). “A school district will fulfill its substantive
obligations under the IDEA if the student is likely to make progress, not regress,
under his IEP, and if the IEP affords the student with an opportunity greater than
mere trivial advancement.” Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195.
The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the board’s IEP was
reasonably calculated to allow T.B. to receive educational benefits at the board’s
high school because the IEP proposed the same type of instruction that T.B.
received at Trinity Pawling. T.B.’s record at Trinity Pawling showed that T.B.
made significant progress with that type of instruction, namely, extra time on
tests and individualized assignments. T.B.’s record at Trinity Pawling is
consistent with the board’s finding that T.B.’s test scores were in the average
range and that T.B. was consequently ineligible for special education. The
hearing officer properly concluded that the board had satisfied its obligation to
7
T.B. and that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for T.B.’s private
schooling.
The board’s motion for judgment on the administrative record [Doc. #25] is
GRANTED. The parents’ motion for judgment on the administrative record [Doc.
#34] is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: March 20, 2008.
8