Michael P. v. Department of Education

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge CLIFTON. .

OPINION

Courtney G., a minor with dyslexia, by and through her mother and Guardian Ad Litem, Elizabeth G., 1 appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Hearings Officer’s (“Hearing Officer”) conclusion that the Hawaii Department of Education (“Hawaii DOE”) properly found Courtney ineligible for services under the Individuals with Dis *1060 abilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Hawaii DOE determined that Courtney did not qualify for special education under the “specific learning disability” classification because she could not demonstrate a “severe discrepancy” between her actual achievement and her intellectual capacity. Both the Hearing Officer and the district court rejected Courtney’s argument that Hawaii DOE violated IDEA by relying exclusively on the “severe discrepancy model” to determine whether she had a “specific learning disability.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Background

“Congress enacted IDEA in 1970 to ensure that all children with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special…

dissenting:

According to the majority, there is only one school district in the entire country which is forbidden from deciding for itself whether to use the “severe discrepancy model” in determining whether a student has a specific learning disability. That school district is not one in which either of the judges in the majority live. It is where I live: the state of Hawaii.

The majority’s decision is not based on any particular animus toward me, nor, I am sure, by any antagonism toward the state of Hawaii. Nonetheless, I view the majority opinion as remarkably disrespectful towards the state, simply because Hawaii has decided to operate its public schools through a single statewide school district. Because the majority opinion is also wrong in its interpretation of federal law regarding the authority of the Hawaii Department of Education (“Hawaii DOE”) under IDEA and has not shown the proper deference to the findings of the hearing officer, I respectfully, but forcefully, dissent.

I. Hawaii DOE’s Regulations Requiring Exclusive Reliance on the “Severe Discrepancy Model” Did Not Violate IDEA

Hawaii is the only state in the nation that has placed the primary responsibility for…

Carl M. Varady, Honolulu, HI, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Rebecca A. Copeland, Department of Education, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for the defendant-appellee.

Before: BETTY B. FLETCHER, HARRY PREGERSON, and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge CLIFTON.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

Courtney G., a minor with dyslexia, by and through her mother and Guardian Ad Litem, Elizabeth G., [1] appeals from the district court's order affirming the Administrative Hearings Officer's ("Hearing Officer") conclusion that the Hawaii Department of Education ("Hawaii DOE") properly found Courtney ineligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Hawaii DOE determined that Courtney did not qualify for special education under the "specific learning disability" classification because she could not demonstrate a "severe discrepancy" between her actual achievement and her intellectual capacity. Both the Hearing Officer and the district court rejected Courtney's argument that Hawaii DOE violated IDEA by relying exclusively on the "severe discrepancy model" to determine whether she had a "specific learning disability."…