In Upper Darby School District v. K.W., Nos. 23-2650, 23-265, 2024 WL 3811990, 124 LRP 30821 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2024) (unpublished), the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that a school district denied a student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to address significant behavioral needs and upheld a substantial compensatory education award.
The student was described as requiring significant support in order to learn and had been placed in private schools with public funding beginning in the spring of 2019. By the 2020–21 school year, the student was struggling academically and exhibiting escalating behaviors, including frequent frustration, yelling, running around the classroom, and repeated need for de-escalation. During the 2020–21 and 2021–22 school years, the student attended Y.A.L.E. Philadelphia.
Two independent evaluations—one conducted before the Y.A.L.E. placement and one conducted while the student was enrolled there—recommended that the student receive a Positive Behavior Support Plan (PBSP) based on a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA). The district did not adopt those recommendations or incorporate a PBSP into the student’s individualized education program (IEP). The student’s behavior continued to deteriorate, as documented by a behavioral analyst, and the private school ultimately disenrolled the student before changes could be implemented.
The district attempted to identify a new placement, but the parent rejected one proposed school after learning of alleged abuse at its facilities. The parent initially filed a due process complaint but withdrew it when the district offered to issue additional referrals and provide private tutoring. The tutoring services were inconsistent, and none of the identified schools accepted the student by the end of February 2022. In March 2022, the parent filed a second due process complaint alleging denial of FAPE in violation of IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act during the 2020–21 and 2021–22 school years.
The hearing officer concluded that the district provided FAPE during the 2020–21 school year and through mid-April of the 2021–22 school year, awarding compensatory education only for the latter portion of the second year. On judicial review, the district court reversed in significant part, finding that the district denied FAPE for the entirety of both school years and awarding $128,635 in compensatory education.
On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed. The court noted that the district court carefully explained its departures from the hearing officer’s findings and supported its conclusions with record evidence. In particular, the district court declined to defer to the hearing officer’s determination that the student did not require a PBSP, citing evidence that the district failed to implement the independent experts’ recommendations. The court of appeals agreed that the student’s behavioral challenges were evident from the start of the 2020–21 school year, worsened during the following year, and consistently interfered with the student’s ability to learn.
The court of appeals also affirmed the scope of the compensatory education award. It concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding full school days of compensatory education and in declining to reduce the award based on tutoring services the district had provided. The record reflected that the student’s behavioral difficulties permeated the school day and that the tutoring was intermittent, short-lived, and unhelpful, with the district unable to provide a reliable accounting of the services delivered.
The decision reflects that persistent behavioral needs that interfere with learning must be addressed through appropriate behavioral interventions, that failure to implement recommended supports may result in a denial of FAPE across multiple school years, and that courts may award substantial compensatory education where the record shows pervasive loss of educational opportunity.