In C.K. v. Baltimore City Board of Commissioners, No. GLR-22-80, 2023 WL 3740555, 123 LRP 17311 (D. Md. May 31, 2023), the parents of a high school student with multiple disabilities challenged the adequacy of the individualized education program (IEP) proposed by the Baltimore City Public Schools. The student attended a private school for students with learning disabilities that enrolled both publicly funded students and students whose parents paid tuition privately. C.K. attended as a private-pay student and received a Personalized Education Program that included a range of supports and services.
While the student was in ninth grade, the parents initiated the IEP process with the school system. The student was found eligible, and the school system provided a draft IEP identifying the general education teacher as the primary provider of supplementary aids and services. The parents requested that the primary provider be changed to a special education teacher, consistent with the student’s program at the private school, but the school system declined. The proposed IEP recommended more than thirty hours per week in general education classes of up to twenty-five students, supplemented by five hours of special education support, including thirty minutes of speech-language therapy.
The parents objected to several aspects of the proposed IEP, including the absence of an arts-enhanced curriculum, the lack of permission to use a word processor, and the omission of speech-language consulting services. School system personnel responded that these supports were available to all students within the public school system and were therefore not included as individualized services.
The parents filed a due process complaint challenging the proposed IEP and seeking tuition reimbursement for keeping the student at the private school. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the school system had not committed procedural violations and that the proposed IEP offered the student a free appropriate public education. The parents sought judicial review, but the district court affirmed the administrative decision.
In upholding the ALJ’s ruling, the court emphasized the deference owed to administrative findings where the hearing officer carefully evaluates expert testimony. The court noted that the parents’ experts opined that the student required placement in small special education classes, but found that testimony speculative because the experts lacked familiarity with the instructional methods used in the public schools. The court further rejected arguments that the IEP was predetermined or that the school system committed a procedural violation by failing to specify a particular school site, explaining that the school system stated the IEP could be implemented at any city public high school.
The court addressed the parents’ contention that they were excluded from school selection under the school choice process. While acknowledging that the parent encountered difficulty communicating with some schools, the court credited testimony that the parents did not fully participate in the selection process. On the merits, the court relied on Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 197 (1982), and concluded that the proposed IEP was reasonably calculated to confer some educational benefit.
Taken together, the decision reflects that disagreement with a school system’s proposed instructional model does not, by itself, establish a denial of FAPE, and that courts will defer to administrative determinations where the record supports the conclusion that an IEP is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.