## Facts

- James M. was a 19-year-old student with autism and related neurological, motor, and speech deficits.
- He had received special education and related services, including speech and occupational therapy, in both public and private school settings.
- The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) proposed an Individualized Education Program (IEP) intended to return James to a public-school program.
- Compared with James’s private-school program, the proposed IEP provided fewer hours of speech therapy and reduced access to direct occupational therapy.
- James’s mother filed an IDEA administrative due-process complaint alleging the proposed IEP was substantively deficient and denied James a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
- A hearings officer found the IEP offered FAPE.
- The parent filed a civil action in federal district court under IDEA seeking reversal and tuition reimbursement for the private placement.

## Issues

1. Whether HIDOE’s proposed IEP was reasonably calculated to provide James a FAPE notwithstanding reduced speech and occupational therapy compared to his private program.
2. Whether alleged procedural defects, including aspects of parental participation in IEP development, denied James a FAPE.
3. Whether the parent was entitled to reimbursement for unilateral private-school tuition if the public IEP was appropriate.

## Decision

- The district court affirmed the hearings officer’s determination that the IEP offered James a FAPE.
- The court held the IEP satisfied IDEA’s substantive standard by offering a “basic floor of opportunity” and being reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit in light of James’s circumstances.
- The court found the record supported that the IEP was individualized and qualitatively adequate; a simple hour-for-hour comparison to the private program was not controlling.
- The court concluded any procedural shortcomings did not seriously impede parental participation or deprive James of educational benefit and therefore did not amount to a denial of FAPE.
- Because HIDOE offered FAPE, the court denied tuition reimbursement and entered judgment for HIDOE.

## Legal Principles

- Under IDEA, a FAPE is provided when an IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit; IDEA does not require maximizing potential or matching a private program.
- IEP adequacy turns on individualized design and expected educational benefit, not solely on the quantity of related-service hours compared with a private placement.
- Procedural violations warrant relief only if they significantly impede parental participation, deprive the student of educational benefit, or otherwise result in a denial of FAPE.
- Parents who unilaterally place a child in private school may obtain reimbursement only if the public agency failed to offer FAPE and the private placement is appropriate.
- Educational agencies retain discretion to rely on professional judgment when developing an IEP, provided parental input is meaningfully considered.

## Conclusion

The court upheld HIDOE’s proposed IEP as providing FAPE despite reduced related-service hours relative to a private program, found no actionable procedural denial of FAPE, and denied reimbursement for the parent’s unilateral private-school placement.


James M. v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 803 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Haw. 2011)