N.K.M. v. Rye City School District

Background

G.M.’s parents challenged the Rye City School District’s proposed individualized education programs for the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 school years under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. They had placed G.M. at Windward, a private special-education school, and sought reimbursement for his tuition. The State Review Officer reversed an impartial hearing officer’s decision and concluded that the District had offered G.M. a free appropriate public education for both school years.

The parents then moved for summary judgment, asking the federal court to reverse the State Review Officer and award tuition reimbursement. They argued that the District’s plans did not adequately address G.M.’s language, reading, writing, and math needs; did not provide sufficiently specialized instruction; and did not provide adequate support in the proposed integrated co-teaching program.

2020–2021 School Year

The court upheld the State Review Officer’s conclusion that the District offered G.M. a free appropriate public education for 2020–2021. The court determined that the 2020–2021 individualized education program reflected consideration of relevant evaluations, including information from a 2017 private evaluation, even though the Committee on Special Education did not expressly discuss every part of that evaluation at the meeting.

The court also concluded that the plan adequately addressed G.M.’s math needs through integrated co-teaching, goals, accommodations, and related supports. It rejected the argument that the District had to use the Orton-Gillingham reading method or provide a particular teaching methodology. The plan included daily specialized reading instruction in a small group, additional summer reading sessions, integrated co-teaching, speech-language services, and other supports. The court deferred to the State Review Officer’s well-reasoned assessment that the overall program was appropriate.

Accordingly, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their request for tuition reimbursement for the 2020–2021 school year.

2021–2022 School Year

The court upheld the State Review Officer’s conclusions concerning several aspects of the 2021–2022 plan. It agreed that the record showed appropriate consideration of the 2020 psychological evaluation and that the annual goals addressed G.M.’s reading, writing, math, speech-language, and social, emotional, and behavioral needs. It also found adequate support for the conclusion that integrated co-teaching in all content areas, together with an educational support class and other accommodations, could address his needs in general.

The court found a significant unresolved issue concerning math. Testing described in the record placed G.M.’s performance in nearly every math skill around the bottom one percent, including the bottom 0.1 percent for some skills, and witnesses placed his math functioning between kindergarten and approximately the middle of second grade. The court questioned how a student performing at approximately a first-grade level could function in a sixth-grade math class with general-education students. It also found that the record did not show how the special-education teacher’s assistance in the integrated class and the 15-student educational support class would provide enough additional remediation.

Neither the impartial hearing officer nor the State Review Officer separately analyzed whether the 2021–2022 plan adequately addressed G.M.’s math needs. Because the issue required educational expertise and lacked an administrative analysis for the court to review, the court remanded it to the State Review Officer for consideration in the first instance. The State Review Officer may, if necessary, send the issue back to the impartial hearing officer for additional evidence.

Private Placement and Equitable Considerations

The State Review Officer had not decided whether Windward was an appropriate private placement or whether fairness considerations supported reimbursement because it found that the District offered a free appropriate public education. The court therefore directed that, if the State Review Officer concludes that the 2021–2022 plan failed to provide an appropriate education because of its treatment of math, the State Review Officer should also consider whether Windward was appropriate and whether equitable considerations support the parents’ reimbursement claim.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment concerning 2020–2021 tuition reimbursement. She granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment concerning 2021–2022 tuition reimbursement in part, by remanding the matter to the State Review Officer to consider the adequacy of the 2021–2022 plan as to math and, if necessary, Windward’s appropriateness and the equitable factors. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case for administrative purposes only.