## Facts

- Steven G., a multiply disabled child living in the Alamo Heights Independent School District, had significant physical and cognitive impairments and communicated through a picture/symbol board.
- From ages three to seven, Steven received year-round educational programming, including summers.
- In 1980 the district curtailed its summer program for moderately and severely handicapped students to a half-day, one-month program and eliminated transportation.
- Steven did not attend the curtailed 1980 summer program and regressed in functional skills (including standing, pointing, and feeding).
- After first grade, Steven’s mother requested summer services; the district denied the request without convening the ARD/IEP committee.
- After second grade, she again requested structured summer services and after-school transportation to a caregiver located about one mile outside district boundaries; the district refused.
- In state administrative proceedings, a hearing officer ordered the district to provide summer services and transportation.
- The federal district court upheld the administrative result, finding Steven would suffer significant regression without continuous, structured summer programming and that transportation was required for him to benefit from special education.

## Issues

1. Whether the EAHCA’s requirement of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) can require extended school year (ESY) services as part of a child’s IEP.
2. Whether after-school transportation to a custodian outside district boundaries is a “related service” required when reasonably necessary for the child to benefit from special education.
3. Whether the school district’s objections to the administrative proceedings (including exhaustion/due process challenges) required reversal.
4. Whether the parent was entitled to reimbursement for unilateral placements and attorneys’ fees.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment requiring structured summer services in Steven’s IEP.
- The court held that evidence of significant regression without summer programming supported ESY services as necessary for FAPE; it rejected a rigid “severe regression” threshold.
- The court affirmed an order requiring out-of-district after-school transportation as a related service reasonably necessary for Steven to benefit from his program.
- The court rejected the district’s exhaustion objection as to transportation, treating it as sufficiently raised or intertwined with the FAPE dispute.
- On the cross-appeal, the court addressed reimbursement and attorneys’ fees more restrictively, limiting relief where EAHCA procedures were not satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- FAPE under the EAHCA requires an individualized program tailored to the child’s unique needs; categorical policies that deny services without individualized assessment are inconsistent with the statute.
- ESY services may be required when the record shows significant regression (or comparable interference with educational benefit) without continuous programming.
- “Related services” include transportation when needed to assist a child to benefit from special education; the obligation is not categorically confined to district geographic boundaries.
- On appellate review, district court factual findings made after review of the administrative record are reviewed for clear error; appellate courts do not reweigh supported evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that the EAHCA required the district to provide ESY services and out-of-district transportation because both were shown to be reasonably necessary for Steven to receive educational benefit, and the statute forbids blanket denials that ignore individualized need.


Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 790 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1986)