1. Seattle School District v B.S. 82 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1996)

2. Relevant Facts BS’s child (AS) had severe behavioral problems that resulted in her expulsion from school. Seattle School District determined that AS was eligible for special services, but that she could be mainstreamed. BS obtained an independent evaluation by a child psychiatrist, who concluded that a residential facility was necessary. BS enrolled AS in a residential facility in Montana and filed an action for a due process hearing. BS wanted the Seattle School District to pay for AS’s treatment at the residential facility.

3. Procedure An administrative law judge ruled that the District had violated the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act. The School District appealed to the federal district court. The district court affirmed the decision and ordered the School District to reimburse BS for the costs of the evaluation and of the residential facility. The district court found that the School District’s educational plan was inadequate and that the residential program in Montana was an appropriate placement

4. Issues Whether the School District’s evaluation of A.S. was sufficient. Whether, under IDEA, mainstreaming was “appropriate” for A.S. Whether the School District should be responsible for the costs of the residential placement because of the “medical” nature of the facility.

5. Under the IDEA, an assessment team that does not include anyone with knowledge in the disorders that cause a student’s problems is insufficient. – The School District’s failure to properly staff the assessment team directly conflicted with federal regulations. When a school district’s evaluation is not appropriate, the student is entitled to an independent evaluation at public expense. – The School District’s own evaluation was insufficient and the parents would have no recourse if the School District could ignore an independent evaluation. Holdings & Reasoning

6. Under the IDEA, if a student is unable to derive any meaningful educational benefit in a regular classroom, then that student is denied an “appropriate” education. – IDEA obligates states to provide a basic floor of opportunity. – IDEA explicitly authorizes placement in residential programs Holdings & Reasoning

7. The residential placement was “appropriate” – By the time the case was in district court, A.S. had been at the facility for seven months and was making progress – The school district failed to provide experts and A.S. provided several experts. – IDEA does not require mainstreaming before moving to more restrictive environments. – The School District never proposed an alternative placement appropriate for A.S. Holdings & Reasoning

8. Under the IDEA, a residential program that addresses underlying medical disorders can still qualify as an “educational” program that a School District needs to pay for. – Most disabilities stem from medical or psychiatric disorders. It would be ridiculous to forbid a residential program from attempting to treat an underlying problem. Holdings & Reasoning

9. Significance Residential placement, rather than mainstreaming, may be appropriate for a disabled student with emotional disorders. Placement of the student in an out-of-state facility may be appropriate if that facility is the closest available location for appropriate treatment. The fact that a residential facility addresses the child's medical or psychiatric disorders does not render the program offered by the facility a "medical" program inappropriate for placement under IDEA or remove the school district's financial responsibility for the non-medical costs of the placement.