## Facts

- Chance Cordrey was a child with severe developmental delays associated with autism, including significant maladaptive behaviors and minimal communication skills.
- During the 1981–82 school year, Chance’s individualized education program (IEP) placed him in a multi-handicapped class that did not operate during the summer.
- Beginning in 1982, Chance’s parents enrolled him, at their own expense, in a private summer program operated by the Toledo Autistic Society (TAS).
- In May 1984, the parents requested that the Evergreen Local School District fund extended school year (ESY) services as part of Chance’s educational program.
- Without convening an IEP meeting, the school district decided Chance would receive summer services through a county-run program rather than TAS.
- A later IEP meeting in November 1985 did not resolve whether ESY should be included for Chance or, if so, which program should be used.
- The evidence on whether Chance required ESY to prevent harmful regression was conflicting and did not clearly show that lack of ESY would cause regression beyond his ongoing pattern during the regular school year.

## Issues

1. Whether parents may waive procedural rights under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) by conduct, including failure to timely assert procedural objections.
2. What standard governs when ESY services are required to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
3. Whether, on this record, the district’s failure to include ESY in Chance’s IEP (and refusal to fund TAS) denied Chance FAPE.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the school district and officials.
- The court held the parents waived certain procedural claims under the Act.
- The court held the district court did not err in concluding Evergreen was not obligated to provide Chance ESY services on these facts.
- The court upheld deference to the state administrative review and declined to substitute judicial educational policy preferences for those of educational authorities.

## Legal Principles

- ESY is not categorically required for students with disabilities; it is provided only when necessary for the child to receive FAPE.
- Whether ESY is required is an individualized determination; regression/recoupment evidence may be considered but is not a rigid or exclusive test.
- In reviewing FAPE disputes, federal courts give “due weight” to state administrative proceedings and apply a deferential standard to educational judgments consistent with *Rowley*.
- Procedural violations under the Act support relief primarily when they cause substantive educational harm (i.e., contribute to denial of FAPE).
- Parents may waive certain procedural protections, expressly or by conduct, particularly where objections are not timely raised and the record does not show resulting denial of FAPE.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that ESY must be ordered only when the evidence shows it is necessary for a child to receive FAPE and that procedural missteps and procedural rights may be waived where no denial of FAPE is shown; accordingly, Evergreen was not required to add ESY to Chance Cordrey’s IEP or fund the private summer program sought by his parents.


Cordrey v. Euckert, 917 F.2d 1460 (6th Cir. 1990)