Opinion
00 C 254
April 17, 2002
Plaintiff K.M. is an 18 year old student with cerebral palsy, left Erb's palsy, seizure disorder, and use of only her right arm with limited ability to use her right hand. She uses a wheelchair and is mostly non-ambulatory and spends the majority of her time lying down, standing in a supine stander, or sitting in her wheelchair, although she is able to walk short distances with the maximal assistance of two people. K.M. is mentally impaired, and her curriculum is modified to a first grade level or below. She communicates through various methods including eye gazes and a pointer device, and she uses her voice to express feelings such as excitement, discomfort, and displeasure. The goals of the individualized education program ("IEP") that was developed for her and agreed to by defendant Consolidated School District 230 ("School District") and K.M.'s parents are basic, functional daily living skills that include developing communication skills, number recognition, money identification, ability to tell time, ability to move and stand, ability to understand feelings of pain or distress and effectively communicate them, and ability to order from a menu or use money. The source of major disagreement between the parties is which school K.M. is to attend. K.M.'s parents wish for their daughter to attend Andrew High School, the closest school to their home, whereas the School District has recommended Stagg High School, which is approximately 12 miles from K.M.'s home. The School District's recommendation is based on Stagg's Ultima program, a multi-needs program for students with severe disabilities. K.M's parents seek judicial review of the administrative hearing decision affirming the placement recommendation by the School District. Both parties have moved for summary judgment which, for the reasons stated below, I am granting for the School District and denying for plaintiffs.
The standard of review is that established by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which provides that a court is to receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). The Seventh Circuit has stated that "due weight" is to be given to the administrative hearing officer's findings. Heather S. v. Wisconsin, 125 F.3d 1045, 1052 (7th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs argue that this deference to the hearing officer's decision is based on an assumption that the hearing officer has expertise on educational policies, and they call into question the credentials of Ann Breen-Greco, the hearing officer in this case. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that because Ms. Breen-Greco has no experience as an educator, she has no familiarity with educational policies. Other than this statement by plaintiffs, there is nothing in the record that leads me to believe that Ms. Breen-Greco's qualifications are suspect, and expertise of educational policies does not necessarily require experience as an educator.
K.M.'s parents primarily have three objections to their daughter's placement at Stagg. First, they believe that it is in their daughter's best interests to receive an education focused on academic and social skills to enhance her quality of life since she will never be independent. They argue that the Stagg program would focus on life skills that are geared towards the goal of making the student more independent. Second, K.M's parents object to Stagg's distance from their home, arguing that the 20-30 minute bus ride to and from Stagg poses serious medical threats to K.M., whereas Andrew is much closer. Finally, K.M.'s parents wish to be close to their daughter's school so that they can provide assistance should she choke or have a seizure.
After reviewing the record, it appears that the Stagg program would provide K.M. with an academic and social education, just not as much as her parents would like. However, the life skills that K.M. would be taught do not seem to be geared towards making her more independent but rather, to enhance her quality of life by improving basic life functions such as communication. Although plaintiffs repeatedly state that the School District wants to teach K.M. unreasonable skills such as doing laundry, the School District has made it clear that they do not want to teach K.M. such a high level of skills and insist that they want to teach her basic life functioning skills. Ms. Breen-Greco found that what Andrew, even with accommodations, can offer K.M. cannot compare to the benefits of Stagg's Ultima program and that it would be in her best interests to attend Stagg. The evidence presented to me supports Ms. Breen-Greco's findings. Even though K.M.'s exact intelligence level has not been assessed, it is clear that her intelligence level is not higher than an elementary school level. Academically, it seems unlikely that exposure to high school level classes would benefit K.M. much, and K.M. would socially interact with other students at Stagg, thus providing her with opportunities to enhance her social skills.
With respect to the medical issues concerning the bus ride to Stagg, the School District has indicated that it would provide K.M. with a qualified aide, equipped with necessary medications and supplies, who would accompany her on all bus rides and that the bus would be equipped to call for emergency services if needed. K.M.'s parents do not feel that these measures adequately address their concerns. However, K.M. has safely and successfully ridden the school bus on field trips, and she rides in her father's van for Easter Seals physical therapy once a week for approximately 50 minutes each way. With respect to the proximity of K.M.'s parents to the school, Stagg is equipped to address K.M.'s health problems — in fact, Stagg is much more equipped than Andrew to address K.M.'s medical needs, since it has a program staffed and designed for students with disabilities like K.M.'s, which Andrew cannot provide. Ms. Breen-Greco found that the School District's accommodations were sufficient to address K.M.'s medical needs and concerns, and the record before me supports her findings.
Finally, plaintiffs raise an issue with the IEP process, contending that the "process was manipulated to force parents to prevent K.M. from attending Andrew High School." Even if I accept plaintiffs' allegations regarding this matter, it does not appear that the alleged manipulation of the IEP process affected Ms. Breen-Greco's decision. Her findings were based on the same evidence that is before me, and they are well-reasoned.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.