James M. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2011)

By Leah O’Donohue

Overview

James M. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2011) was a case heard in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. In this case, the plaintiff, the parent of a child with a Specific Learning Disability (“SLD”), appealed a decision made by a Hearings Officer, claiming that their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”) had been violated. The Defendant responded, arguing that the student had been provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) and an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) as required under the IDEA[1].

Summary 

There were two main issues considered in this case: the first was whether the student's parent had been given appropriate opportunities to participate in planning the student’s IEP, and the second was whether the Hawaii Board of Education (“HBOE”) had satisfied the FAPE requirement of the IDEA. 

Under the IDEA, states must provide students who have disabilities with a FAPE via an IEP that reasonably meets each student's needs. In addition to this, the IDEA gives parents rights regarding their child’s education, including the right to participate in IEP planning[1]. However, in order to be in compliance with the IDEA, schools need only provide a “basic floor of opportunity” to students requiring special education[2].

The Plaintiff argued that the parental rights to participate in the IEP planning for the student were violated, and that the school failed to consider the Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the child’s educational needs, and as such, the Plaintiff was entitled to tuition reimbursement for transferring the student to a private school[1].

The Defendant responded with the facts that the parent had received sufficient notice of and ability to participate in IEP planning meetings, having alerted the Plaintiff of the date and time as well as an option to participate via phonecall, and that the Plaintiff failed to alert the school of scheduling conflicts in a timely manner, resulting in an IEP meeting taking place without the parent present. In addition to this meeting, there were several subsequent meetings that the Plaintiff attended[1].

Regarding the Plaintiff’s contention that the school failed to consider the Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the level of support the IEP would offer the student, the court found that the IEP met the “basic floor of opportunity” requirement to satisfy the FAPE component of the IDEA[1].

The court upheld the hearing officer’s original decision, determining that the HBOE had met the requirements to provide a reasonable FAPE as required under the IDEA, and denied the plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of private school tuition[1].

Impact

The decision in this case sets the precedent that the parents of a child with an SLP are responsible for the financial burden of unilaterally transferring their student to a private school, unless they can prove that the State failed to provide the student with a reasonable FAPE. Additionally, this decision reinforces that a disagreement over the planning of an IEP does not automatically qualify as a breach of the IDEA.

Court Documents 

1. James M. v. Hawaii Department of Education, 803 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Haw. 2011).

Citations 

 2. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act LEARN the LAW. Jan. 2024. https://ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/240502-Learn-the-Law-Individuals-with-Disabilities-Education-Act.pdf