Detailed procedural provisions lie at the heart of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). [1] In order to achieve the goal of providing all children with eligible disabilities with a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”), the IDEA statute requires that the states comply with “extensive procedural rights and safeguards” in order to receive federal funds for use in special education programs. [2]
These procedures include the opportunity for parents to obtain an Individual Educational Evaluation (“IEE”) of the child [3] and file a complaint with the state or local educational agency. Any such complaint is resolved through an “impartial due process hearing” in which parents of disabled children have “an opportunity to present complaints with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a [FAPE] to such child.” [4] Parties to an administrative proceeding under the IDEA have the right to written findings of fact and decisions on any complaint about the provision of a FAPE. [5]
The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the Act’s procedural guarantees are not mere procedural hoops through which Congress wanted state and local educational agencies to jump. [6]
Rather, the formality of the Act’s procedures is itself a safeguard against arbitrary or erroneous decision making. The United States Supreme Court has articulated that material procedural violations, in and of themselves, often can constitute failures to provide a FAPE. In fact, a single material violation of the Act’s procedural guarantees is a sufficient ground for holding that a school district failed to provide a FAPE. Id.
For this reason, the Supreme Court held in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), that the very first inquiry in a case of this type is to determine whether or not there have been any material procedural violations. As the Rowley Court held, “… the importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid.” 458 U.S. 176.
In evaluating whether the District has complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEA, an Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) will consider whether the alleged procedural violation either:
1) Impeded the Student’s right to a free and appropriate public education;
2) Significantly impeded the Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a free and appropriate education; or
3) Caused a deprivation of educational benefits. [7]
_______________________________________________________________________
[1] See, 20 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 615; 34 C.F.R. §§300.300-300.576; Evans v. Rhinebeck Central School District, 930 F. Supp. 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); B.E. R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ. 874 F.2d 1036, 1041 (5th Cir. 1989).
[2] See, 20 U.S.C. § 615(a); LIH v. New York City Board of Educ., 33 IDELR 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); J.G. v. Board of Education of the Rochester City Sch. Dist., 830 F.2d 444, 445 (2d Cir. 1987).
[3] See 20 U.S.C. § 615(b)(I).
[4] See 20 U.S.C. § 615(b)(6).
[5] See Polera v. Board of Education Newburgh, 288 F.3d 478, 482 (2nd Cir. 2002).
[6] See Brandon R.R. 874 F. 2d at 1041, Walczak v. Florida Union Free School Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998).
[7] See, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also, Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp.2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2007), Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007.