Burilovich v. Board of Education of the Lincoln Consolidated Schools
208 F.3d 560 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), courts must give due weight to a school district's educational policy decisions and will not substitute their own judgment on preferable educational methods, so long as the district has complied with the Act's procedural requirements and the resulting Individualized Education Program (IEP) is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.
Facts:
- B.J. Burilovich, born in 1990, exhibited significant language delays and was diagnosed with autism in February 1994.
- His parents, Edwin and Dr. Linda Burilovich, began a home-based program for B.J. using an intensive therapy method called discrete trial training (DTT).
- An October 1994 IEP placed B.J. in the district's pre-primary impaired program but did not incorporate the DTT therapy his parents requested.
- Believing B.J. progressed more at home, the Burilovichs unilaterally reduced his school attendance to increase his DTT hours to 25-30 per week.
- At an IEP meeting in March 1996, the district's special education director, Ronald Greiner, orally proposed a program based predominantly on DTT.
- After encountering strong opposition to DTT from his staff, Greiner held internal meetings with them in April 1996 to develop a new plan.
- The school district subsequently proposed a formal, written IEP in May 1996 that placed B.J. in a mainstream kindergarten with a one-to-one paraprofessional but did not include any DTT.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents, Edwin and Dr. Linda Burilovich, requested an impartial due process hearing before a local hearing officer (LHO) to challenge the May 1996 IEP.
- The LHO ruled in favor of the parents, finding the school's March 1996 oral proposal was a valid IEP that should be implemented and ordering reimbursement for the parents' expenses.
- Both parties appealed the LHO's decision to a state hearing review officer (SHO).
- The SHO reversed the LHO, finding that no IEP had been created in March and that the May 1996 IEP was procedurally and substantively valid and provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
- The Burilovichs, as plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court appealing the SHO's decision.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Board of Education.
- The Burilovichs, as plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district's proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP), which places an autistic child in a mainstream kindergarten with support rather than providing the intensive, home-based therapy requested by the parents, violate the procedural and substantive requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Alan E. Norris
No. The school district’s proposed IEP does not violate the procedural or substantive requirements of the IDEA. The court found no procedural violations, reasoning that the March oral proposal was not a formal IEP because it was not in writing as required by law, and the April meetings were internal staff discussions, not official IEP meetings from which the parents were improperly excluded. Substantively, the court emphasized the principle of judicial deference to educational authorities, stating that courts should not substitute their own notions of sound educational policy. As long as the school district's proposal is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits and meets state standards—in this case, Michigan's 'maximum potential' standard—it is valid, even if the parents prefer a different methodology. Giving 'due weight' to the State Hearing Officer's findings, the court concluded the district's plan took B.J.'s unique needs into account and was appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of judicial deference afforded to the educational methodologies chosen by school districts under the IDEA. It clarifies that as long as a school district meets the extensive procedural requirements of the Act, its substantive decisions on how to educate a child with a disability will likely be upheld. The case establishes that parental preference for a specific, and often costly, therapeutic model like DTT does not compel a school to adopt it, provided the school's own proposed IEP offers a free appropriate public education (FAPE). This precedent strengthens the position of school districts in disputes over educational methods, emphasizing that the central legal question is the appropriateness of the school's plan, not whether a parent's preferred plan might be better.
Unlock the full brief for Burilovich v. Board of Education of the Lincoln Consolidated Schools