In I.K. v. Mannheim Township School District, No. 22-1347, 2023 WL 3477830, 123 LRP 15585 (3d Cir. May 15, 2023), an unpublished Third Circuit decision, the court addressed the application of the “snapshot rule” in assessing whether an individualized education program (IEP) offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The case provides a recent discussion of how behavioral services are evaluated in relation to FAPE.
The case involved a student with autism, a speech-language impairment, and ADHD who had received special education services for several years. The parents approved the student’s IEPs for second and third grade. Midway through the student’s third-grade year, however, the parents became dissatisfied with her educational progress, withdrew her from the public school, enrolled her in a private Montessori school, and filed a due process complaint seeking tuition reimbursement.
The hearing officer concluded that the district had offered the student FAPE and denied the parents’ request for reimbursement. The district court affirmed, and the court of appeals likewise affirmed the judgment in favor of the school district.
On appeal, the Third Circuit first rejected the parents’ argument that the student’s improvement after placement in the private school demonstrated that the district’s program was inadequate. The court reiterated its longstanding precedent that the adequacy of an IEP must be evaluated “as of the time it is offered to the student, and not at some later date.” I.K., 2023 WL 3477830, at *2 (quoting Fuhrmann ex rel. Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Board of Education, 993 F.2d 1031, 1040 (3d Cir. 1993)).
The court also rejected the parents’ contention that the district failed to respond to what they characterized as a rapid emotional and behavioral decline during the student’s third-grade year. The court held that the district court’s determination that the district complied with its obligation to provide FAPE was not “completely devoid of evidentiary support.” Id. at *3 (quoting N.J. Retail Merchants Ass’n v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 374, 390 (3d Cir. 2012)).
The court noted that the relevant IEP, developed in August before the third-grade year, documented positive academic growth and learning, while also acknowledging the student’s negative self-talk and emotional concerns. The student’s test scores remained stable. The record further showed that the district addressed behavioral issues by maintaining communication logs with the parents, providing constant adult supervision, modifying the classroom environment to reduce conflict with a peer, and requesting observation and input from a specialist.
In a footnote, the court cited Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), but did not discuss the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the student’s progress following implementation of a comprehensive behavior intervention plan in a private setting. The decision illustrates that, while evidence of later progress may be informative, the legal inquiry under the snapshot rule focuses on whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress at the time it was offered.