## Facts

- CJN, an eleven-year-old student with brain lesions and a long psychiatric history, received special-education services in the district since kindergarten and progressed academically at an average rate despite persistent behavioral problems.
- In third grade (beginning September 2000), the district placed CJN in a Special Program for Elementary Needs (SPEN) classroom pending a functional behavior assessment and occupational therapy evaluation, then transferred him to a more structured SPEN classroom with higher-functioning peers.
- The district provided accommodations including reduced homework, extended time, positive reinforcement, and a token-economy system; suspensions were used only for physical aggression.
- CJN had repeated behavioral episodes resulting in time-outs and physical restraints, generally brief; on six days restraints lasted five or more minutes and were used in response to dangerous conduct (e.g., kicking others, hitting staff with objects, head-banging).
- A December outburst prompted police involvement and hospitalization.
- After evaluations, the IEP team met multiple times, accepted some and rejected other suggestions, and changed placements, including a school with individualized instruction and partial-day treatment services; after further incidents, the team agreed to homebound instruction.
- CJN’s parent instead placed him unilaterally in private school and sought tuition reimbursement, alleging denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

## Issues

1. Whether the district provided CJN a FAPE in third grade under IDEA by offering IEPs and services reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit.
2. Whether the frequency of time-outs and physical restraints, and alleged insufficiency of positive behavioral interventions, rendered the program substantively inappropriate.
3. Whether academic progress could support a FAPE finding despite significant behavioral difficulties.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the district.
- The court held that CJN received a FAPE during his third-grade year.
- The court accepted the administrative review officer’s conclusion that the district’s evolving program and IEP revisions satisfied IDEA’s substantive standard.
- The court denied reimbursement because the district did not deny FAPE.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires an IEP tailored to the child’s unique needs and reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits (Rowley standard).
- Evidence of educational benefit may include academic progress; IDEA does not require maximizing a child’s potential.
- Courts review IDEA disputes with deference to educational authorities and give due weight to administrative determinations, avoiding substitution of judicial educational policy preferences.
- The use of restraints and time-outs, when employed to address dangerous behavior and considered in context, does not by itself establish denial of FAPE; IDEA does not mandate a particular behavioral methodology.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the district’s repeated efforts to adjust CJN’s IEP and placements, together with his continued academic progress, showed the program was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit; the restraints and time-outs, though contested, did not make the third-grade program a denial of FAPE, so tuition reimbursement was unavailable.


CJN ex rel. SKN v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 323 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2003)