## Facts

- A.D. was diagnosed with ADHD and previously received special education for ADHD and a speech impediment through third grade, then exited special education by agreement after improvement.
- In seventh and eighth grades, A.D. developed serious behavioral problems, including multiple discipline referrals, removals from class, in-school suspensions, and later theft and robbery offenses.
- Despite misconduct, A.D. passed his classes and met statewide academic standards on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).
- The school provided general-education interventions, including an “At Risk” program, a Student Success Team, and an academic/behavior contract.
- A.D.’s mother requested an IDEA evaluation; the district’s ARD committee conducted testing and reviewed records and testimony from educators, psychologists, family members, and physicians.
- Teachers with ongoing classroom contact reported A.D. was academically on track and could succeed without special education; treating physicians recommended special education based largely on limited contact and parental reports.
- The ARD committee concluded A.D. did not qualify as a child with a disability requiring special education under IDEA.

## Issues

1. Whether A.D. qualified as a “child with a disability” under IDEA by showing that, by reason of ADHD, he needed special education and related services.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district.
- The court held that IDEA eligibility requires more than a diagnosis; the student must need special education “by reason of” the disability.
- Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that A.D. did not need special education due to ADHD because he maintained passing grades and met state academic standards in general education.
- The court approved giving greater weight to educators’ sustained, firsthand observations and objective academic data than to physician recommendations not grounded in extended school-based observation.
- The court accepted that significant portions of A.D.’s behavioral escalation were plausibly linked to contemporaneous family and personal stressors rather than showing an ADHD-driven educational need for special education.
- The court reiterated that, in IDEA review, courts give due weight to school authorities’ educational judgments when based on comprehensive evaluation and consistent evidence.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA eligibility requires (1) a qualifying disability and (2) a resulting need for special education and related services; a medical diagnosis alone is insufficient.
- A student’s satisfactory academic progress in the general curriculum, supported by teacher testimony and objective measures, can support a finding of no IDEA eligibility even with serious behavioral problems.
- In judicial review of IDEA decisions, courts conduct an independent review of the record but give due weight to educational evaluations and professional judgments grounded in school-based evidence.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that A.D.’s ADHD and misconduct did not establish IDEA eligibility because the record showed he progressed academically in general education and did not need special education services by reason of his disability.


Alvin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. A.D. ex rel. Patricia F., 503 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2007)