## Facts

- C.D. was a student with an intellectual disability and significant language deficits eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- As C.D. approached high school, the school district proposed IEPs placing her in general-education settings for electives and in the district’s substantially separate ACCESS program (modified curriculum) for core academics.
- C.D.’s parents rejected the IEPs as too restrictive and enrolled her in a private college-preparatory school, seeking an inclusion-based public placement with supports.
- The parents filed an administrative complaint seeking reimbursement for multiple years of private-school tuition.
- A state special-education hearing officer found the proposed IEPs provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE), satisfied the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate, and contained adequate transition services; reimbursement was denied.
- The federal district court affirmed, and the parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed IEPs were substantively adequate under IDEA’s FAPE requirement, applying the standard that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.
2. Whether placing C.D. in a substantially separate program for academics violated IDEA’s LRE requirement to educate students with disabilities with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.
3. Whether the IEPs failed to provide required transition assessments, goals, and services such that C.D. was denied a FAPE.
4. Whether the parents were entitled to private-school tuition reimbursement based on alleged IDEA violations.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the administrative decision.
- The court held the lower tribunals applied the correct FAPE standard consistent with governing Supreme Court precedent.
- The court concluded the ACCESS academic placement, combined with inclusion for electives and other activities, satisfied IDEA’s LRE requirement given C.D.’s needs.
- The court held the IEPs’ transition components complied with applicable requirements and that any procedural defects did not amount to a denial of FAPE.
- Because the district offered FAPE, the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for unilateral private placement.

## Legal Principles

- An IEP satisfies IDEA’s substantive FAPE requirement if it is reasonably calculated to enable progress that is appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances, assessed based on the information available when the IEP was developed.
- Reviewing courts give due weight to administrative fact-finding and educational judgments, particularly on programmatic and pedagogical matters, absent legal error or clear factual error.
- IDEA’s LRE mandate requires education with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, but does not require full inclusion when the student cannot receive meaningful educational benefit in general education even with supports.
- Multi-factor LRE tests used in other circuits may be considered as aids, but are not required where the governing standard is satisfied through individualized analysis.
- Transition services must be based on age-appropriate transition assessments and include postsecondary goals and services; IDEA does not require any specific set of assessment instruments.
- Procedural shortcomings under IDEA do not establish denial of FAPE unless they impede the child’s right to FAPE, significantly impede parental participation, or cause deprivation of educational benefits.
- Tuition reimbursement is unavailable when the public program offered FAPE.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld the school district’s proposed high-school IEPs as providing FAPE under the governing progress-based standard, placing C.D. in an appropriate least restrictive environment, and meeting transition-planning obligations; the parents therefore could not recover private-school tuition.


C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2019)