Polk Law Blog

The Ledger is reporting that the Polk County School Board has approved a $475,000 settlement in a long-running case involving whether an autistic child received an adequate education. Like most legal cases reported in the press, this one is more complex than meets the eye. The goal of this post is to explain the history of the suit without leaving out the all the technical details, but providing enough adulteration for the educated public to comprehend. For simplicity, I will use the word “Plaintiff” to mean the young man involved, his parents, and their attorney, depending on the context. 

This case is a head-on collision between the Plaintiff and the local school board, and the manner in which it played out raised more questions than it answered. I can easily see both sides of the story. The Plaintiff has a legal right to an effective education. The school is not allowed to provide any less of an education just because he is disabled, even if educating him costs a lot more. But the school board has to provide an education within the confines of its budget, common sense, and in a way that is consistent with how it treats other children. When those two interests collide, it can get ugly. And it did. 

I’ll begin by talking about the law itself, move on to a procedural history of the case from start to finish, and close with a summary of the factual findings and my own thoughts. If you do not want to concern yourself with the detailed procedural analysis, just skip to the end. 

Read on if you are interested (click “More” below).

The Law

The story begins with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or “IDEA.” For states that receive federal money for special education programs, as all states do, IDEA requires several things that are relevant here. First, the state must make sure that “[a] free appropriate public education is available to all children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21.” 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)(A). To put it bluntly, schools must actually educate disabled students instead of simply acting as a day care.

The education must be “appropriate,” so the school does not need to guarantee that a disabled child will learn to do calculus, analyze Joyce, or even graduate from high school, but the school must provide an “appropriate” education suitable to the child’s particular situation. The key component of the IDEA paradigm is a customized Individualized Education Program, or “IEP,” that must be developed for each disabled student. 

If a student is able to meet the system’s graduation requirements (which are set by statute in Florida), the school system is not required to educate that student past graduation. If, however, the student is unable to meet the graduation requirements, the school system has to provide for him through age 21 (just like non-disabled students who have not meet all the requirements for graduation).

The Issue

I bet you can see where this is going. In the Polk County case, the school board graduated the Plaintiff when he was 18 or 19, well before the age of 21. The school board claimed that the Plaintiff had met all the normal requirements for graduation, including passing the FCAT and having the required GPA. The Plaintiff claimed that he did not meet the requirements for graduation and was therefore entitled to additional educational services until he turned 21, and also felt that the education provided to him was not “appropriate” as required by the IDEA. First stop, take it up with the school.

The Proceedings

Step One: Polk County Schools

Initially, the Plaintiff brought up its concerns about forced graduation with the Polk County School Board. There was some back and forth, and some proposed modifications to the IEP (Individualized Education Plan), but the graduation issue was not dealt-with head on. There was a lot of complication about dates: when was Plaintiff informed of the pending graduation? Did the Plaintiff challenge it soon enough? Should it have been discussed sooner? These complications are not really important for our purposes, but they become a very big deal later. The school board stuck to its guns – Plaintiff was “graduated” with a regular high school diploma. Victory: School Board. That leads us to…

Step Two: Florida Division of Administrative Hearings

A little more background is needed. Because of “due process” rights guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions, the government cannot deprive someone of their rights without giving them a fair opportunity to be heard. Court cases going way back state that due process rights include the right to a formal hearing in front of an unbiased, qualified adjudicator, including the right to present arguments and evidence on one’s behalf. Therefore Florida, like most (all?) states and the federal government, has a special body set up to conduct these hearings on behalf of government agencies, the Division of Administrative Hearings, or “DOAH.”

In a typical DOAH case, the aggrieved party, called the “Petitioner,” requests a formal due process hearing directly from the government agency involved. That’s what happened here – the Plaintiff sent the request for a due process hearing to the Department of Education. Paraphrased, the request goes like this: “Hey! You denied me a right that I am entitled to under the law. I demand that you grant me my due process rights and give me a formal hearing on the topic so I can show you why you should change the decision.” The Department of Education, as is normal for a state government agency, referred the case to DOAH to conduct the hearing on its behalf. Think of DOAH as a sort of third-party contractor of the School Board conducting the hearing that the the Department of Education is required to conduct. This is good for everyone because, typically, DOAH Administrative Law Judges are intelligent and experienced adjudicators, and it removes the agency from a potential conflict of interest. 

The DOAH Administrative Law Judge dismissed the case. In his November 10, 2004 order, the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) found that Plaintiff met the requirements for graduation. The ALJ claimed that his authority was limited to consideration of whether the IEP was an appropriate IEP before graduation, but that after graduation occurs, he does not have the authority to go back and require the school board to make amends for a bad IEP.  Victory: School Board.  The Plaintiff moves on to Plan B.

Step Three: Federal Court – Tampa, Florida

In December, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court in Tampa effectively appealing the ALJ’s decision. The suit alleged violations of IDEA and requested an injunction allowing him to return to school through age 21. Again, the two central issues were whether the Plaintiff should have graduated or not, and whether the IEP provided him with a free and appropriate public education.

At the outset, the Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction that would allow him to return to school during the pendency of the litigation. The court granted the injunction and found that, because of the timing issue mentioned above, the school board was at fault for not giving the Plaintiff adequate time to contest the graduation. Therefore, the court said, the school board was not permitted to argue that he had graduated, and was stuck with the conclusion that he did not. (This type of legal theory is called “estoppel.”) Ergo, they have to take him back during the pendency of the lawsuit. The school board appealed the denial to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court overturned the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the trial court lept to the estoppel conclusion without adequate evidence. The court of appeals instructed the trial court to look into that issue again and reconsider its decision. By this point, it is early 2006. 

In the meantime, however, the trial court determined that the Plaintiff did, in fact, graduate, agreeing with the decision of the ALJ on that issue. But the court determined that the ALJ was wrong about the IEP issue. According to the court, the Plaintiff was entitled to his day in court to show that the IEP was not appropriate and to seek compensation, regardless of whether the Plaintiff graduated or not. 

Victory: Tie. And we’re back in front of the ALJ to determine whether there has been a failure to provide a free and appropriate public education. 

Step Four: Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Take Two

Back at DOAH for round two, things go much better for the Plaintiff. DOAH holds an evidentiary hearing and, in November 2007, a 67 page order from the ALJ concludes with a finding that the School Board did not provide a free and appropriate public education to the Plaintiff. In April of 2008, after further wrangling, the ALJ determined that the School Board was required to provide five years of additional educational services to the Plaintiff at a cost of $144,000 per year. Grand total: $720,000. Victory: Plaintiff. 

The School Board appealed the ALJ’s decision decision this time, and we’re back in federal court. 

Step Five: Federal Court – Tampa Florida, Take Two

While the above DOAH proceeding was going on, the parties were continuing to fight over fees and costs in federal court. The Plaintiff said that the school board should have to pay his fees and costs because he won a remand back to DOAH. The school board said that it was the prevailing party because it prevailed on the graduation issue.  The court denied both and decided to wait and see what the ALJ did. The Plaintiff appealed that decision to the appeals court, and the appeal was denied. 

When the ALJ’s order finally makes its way back to federal court, Plaintiff again asked for fees, and was again denied on the grounds that, because the School Board had appealed the order, it could not be determined whether the Plaintiff won the case or not yet. A final decision on fees was deferred pending resolution of the appeal.  

The parties mutually requested an opportunity to mediate the case in front of a neutral mediator to see if they could work something out. The court readily agreed, and the parties reached a tentative settlement at mediation on September 3, 2008 subject to approval by the school board. 

After the September 23, 2008 school board meeting it sounds like its a done deal. 

The Aftermath and Debate

What a nightmare for all involved. First and foremost, the Plaintiff, the school board, and all the citizens of Polk County should be very happy that this case ended in an agreed-upon settlement that everyone decided they could live with. But this case leaves a number of lingering questions. The facts place it directly at the epicenter of a collision between the two completely legitimate competing interests. (Note: The facts considered by the court focused mainly on the last two years of his education. This is not necessarily how it worked for his entire student career.)

First of all, consider the steps the school board went to educate the Plaintiff and the evidence in the School Board’s favor (as found by the ALJ):

• The Plaintiff passed the required portion of the FCAT fair a square, as well as the written section, which was not required for graduation.
• The Plaintiff graduated from high school, a great accomplishment!
• The Plaintiff was educated in a completely separate building in a class in which he was the only student.
• The Plaintiff had a dedicated teacher and paraprofessional assigned to him.
• The required textbooks were used in the class, and the teacher completed the textbooks on time.
• The Plaintiff’s teacher testified that the Plaintiff was able to do math, create written reports, and demonstrated an understanding of the subjects taught consistent with an acceptable grade level.
• All this despite the fact that the Plaintiff was largely non-verbal and had some major behavioral problems, including a propensity for violent outbursts that, on at least one occasion, resulted in his placement in juvenile detention. 
• The Plaintiff was content enough with the IEP process and educational achievements not to file a request for a due process hearing until AFTER it was disclosed that the school board intended to graduate him. If there was an IEP problem, why wasn’t it raised sooner?

From the school board’s perspective, it devoted immense resources and energy to successfully educate a young man with a lot of challenges. They worked together with the Plaintiff’s family in a mutually satisfactory way, and were only challenged after they (appropriately) graduated him. 

But the laws involved lend considerable support for the facts that were in the Plaintiff’s favor:

• Under IDEA, simply providing a regular education is not enough. The school must provide education specifically appropriate to the individual’s needs, life skills training, and services designed to ease the transition from school to life. The school must keep detailed records of progress made on these goals.
• The school did not adequately address the social or behavioral issues which were part of the IEP. 
• The school did not keep good records of his progress or collect enough data on his IEP goals.
• Despite performing satisfactorily enough to graduate, the IEP goals included other academic requirements on which progress was not made.
• Transitional services to help him get ready for the next stage in his life were inadequate.

The court’s specific findings on these issues (the 67-page order) are much more crticial of the school than this summary makes it appear.

I am completely sympathetic to the school board’s situation. The lengths it was required to go through for this Plaintiff were extraordinary, almost shockingly so to those unfamiliar with special education. But parents have a day in, day out struggle to raise disabled children in a society that is not friendly to them in a lot of ways. As a society, we have decided that making sure we provide for these children is an important function of government, so much so that we passed very strong laws to protect them and provide for them. Assuming the various judges involved made correct factual determinations, it appears that the law was properly applied here. Even if it’s hard and expensive, the school board still has to follow the law.

Most cases like this probably don’t get very far because parents don’t have the determination, energy, or money to take them all the way. The amounts spent on attorneys in this case is truly shocking.  I wish that the parties had found a way to get to this settlement before expending so many valuable resources, but there is no way for me to analyze which side (if not both) was being unreasonable during early settlement negotiations. I am certain they would each have a different take on that. I doubt either side predicted it would get this far.

When things like this happen, the public is quick to point the finger at someone, anyone: the parents, the teacher, the school board, the lawyers. In reality, it’s not that simple. There are probably hundreds of little things that each side could have done to make this sitution better as things progressed. Part of the job of attorneys, and probably our hardest job, is to help our clients find those things and do them, even if it means giving up some of the principled high ground to the other team. Clients often do not like to hear this. 

If any good has come of this, the Plaintiff now has some extra money to get an even better education, and the Polk County School Board has an incentive to make sure it treats its special education students with all the care and attention that the law entitles them to. At least it’s something. 

DISCLAIMER: I have no personal knowledge of any of the parties or issues in this suit. My information was gleaned from the following sources, which you may find helpful if you want to learn more:

1. IDEA statutory text
2. September 23, 2008 Ledger Article
3. May 1, 2008 Ledger Article
4. http://www.eseparents.org, the parents’ web site.
5. Wikipedia: IDEA
6. US Dept of Education OSEP IDEA site
7. National Center for Learning Disabilities IDEA 2004 Parent Guide
8. The docket and filings in the federal case, which are not readily accessible to the public. (Some of these documents are on the parents’ web site, above.