NAME: Jordan Going

CASE NAME AND NUMBER: J.H. v. Fort Bend Independent School District, No. 11-
20718
COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Due Process Hearing to District Court
APPELLATE COURT: United State Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2012
ISSUE: J.H. is a severely disabled fourteen-year-old child. Under IDEA, his parents

challenge his placement in a Special Education class instead of a General Education class

for Social Studies and Science. J.H. does not argue that the procedure followed by the

school district in reaching this decision, but because of his placement in Special

Education for the two courses stated above, he disagrees with the district courts fact

finding that the educational plan by the school district was appropriate.

FACTS: J.H. receives Special Education services because of his intellectual disability

and speech impairment. He currently attended sixth grade at Dulles Middle School in the

Fort Bend Independent School District. J.H. was evaluated at the beginning of sixth

grade, and received an IQ score of 48 and classified as mentally retarded. His academic

achievement scores range from Kindergarten to second grade. Thus in May 2009, J.H.s

Review and Dismissal Committee recommended that his Science and Social Studies

objectives be implemented in Special Education; his parents disagreed with this

recommendation and J.H. was allowed to begin sixth grade in General Education Social

Studies and Science. Throughout the year, J.H.s teachers reported was becoming more

and more overwhelmed by the General Education courses, and it was continued to be

recommended that he be placed in Special Education for those classes. Evaluations were

then performed by two experts who agreed with the placement recommendation. His
parents still objected, but J.H. was placed in Special Education for these courses anyway.

J.H.s parents then conducted a due process hearing, which found that the schools

proposed placement in a Special Education classroom was appropriate under IDEA. J.H.

appealed to the federal district court.

HOLDING: The school district's plan is appropriate. "The role of the judiciary is not to

second-guess the decisions of school officials or to substitute their plans for the education

of disabled students with the court's." The school district did not commit error in any way

in concluding that J.H. was receiving no educational benefit from the General Education

classroom in Science and Social Studies and that substituting Special Education classes

for General Education classes in Science and Social Studies was consistent with

providing him a FAPE.

RATIONALE: IDEA requires that school districts receiving federal funding implement

procedures and policies that assure each disabled student receives a FAPE. To receive a

FAPE, parents and school districts collaborate together to create an IEP that is

"reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits (R.H. v. Plano

Independent School District). One of the primary goals of IDEA is mainstreaming, and

placing students in their least restrictive environment required by the students needs.

That is, a student with disabilities should be placed in a Special Education classroom only

when the General Education classroom is not satisfactory to the student. The Daniel R.R.

case weighs in favor because J.H. did not interfere with other students education, and

because he received an educational benefit in the mainstream classroom. There is also

ample testimonies and records that J.H. was not educationally benefiting from his
General Education classes. Therefore, it would educationally benefit J.H. and place him

in his least restrictive environment to place him in a Special Education classroom for two

classes during the day.

IMPLICATIONS: J.H.s parents did not receive what they wanted for their son in

keeping him completely in the General Education classrooms. However, with J.H.

attending Special Education twice a day he is receiving a FAPE under IDEA

appropriately according to his LRE.

SEPARATE OPINIONS: n/a (The Court agreed in favor of the school district).
MY OPINION AND PERSONAL IMPRESSIONS: I believe the Court ruled wisely,

in the best way possible for both J.H. and the school district. From the evidence

presented, it seems to me that J.H.s LRE and appropriate education is attending a Special

Education class twice a day. I worry about the parents being offended, but with taking it

to Court I hope they see the wisdom and understand why J.H. is being placed where he is.

It just reminds me of the criticalness of communication between parents and teachers, and

especially teachers being understanding of parents, and showing that they are

understanding.

CITATIONS/REFERENCES:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?
case=13517771401079602136&hl=en&as_sdt=200005&sciodt=200006
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C11/11-20718.0.wpd.pdf