## Facts

- V.P., an eight-year-old student residing within Houston Independent School District (HISD), qualified for special education under the IDEA due to auditory and speech impairments.
- HISD identified V.P. as IDEA-eligible at age four and developed IEPs providing speech therapy and classroom modifications, while placing her largely in regular education settings.
- V.P. continued to experience academic difficulties; her parents withdrew her from HISD and enrolled her in a private school specializing in language-learning disabilities.
- The private school provided specialized instruction and training aimed at V.P.’s auditory and language-processing needs (including auditory training, phonemic-awareness training, memory training, noise desensitization, sequencing training, and gap-detection training).
- V.P. remained in the private school for a second year while IDEA administrative proceedings were pending.

## Issues

1. Whether HISD denied V.P. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA through substantively inadequate IEPs and services.
2. Whether the parents’ unilateral private-school placement was appropriate such that tuition reimbursement was available.
3. Whether reimbursement could include a second year of private-school tuition incurred during the pendency of the proceedings.
4. Whether V.P. was entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party, and what proceedings were required to determine fees.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the determination that HISD denied V.P. a FAPE.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed reimbursement for the first year of private-school tuition.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of reimbursement for the second year and rendered judgment awarding reimbursement for that year.
- The Fifth Circuit remanded for further proceedings on attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- A school district violates the IDEA when an IEP is not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit based on the child’s identified needs.
- Parents may obtain tuition reimbursement for a unilateral private placement when (1) the district denied FAPE and (2) the private placement is appropriate to the child’s needs.
- Reimbursement may extend to continued private placement during the pendency of IDEA proceedings when the district’s program remains inadequate, the private placement remains appropriate, and equitable considerations do not bar relief.
- Federal courts must give due weight to state IDEA hearing officers’ factual determinations, particularly on educational needs and the suitability of services.
- Prevailing parents may recover attorney’s fees under the IDEA, subject to district-court determination of entitlement and amount.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that HISD denied V.P. a FAPE, that the parents’ specialized private-school placement was appropriate, and that tuition reimbursement properly covered both the initial year and the additional year attended while proceedings were pending; the case was remanded for determination of attorney’s fees.


Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. V.P., 582 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2009)