## Facts

- Ariel Zelazny attended public school in the Kings Local School District and qualified for special education services under IDEA due to obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, and Asperger’s syndrome.
- The district evaluated Ariel and developed IEPs for seventh and eighth grades; Ariel earned passing grades and showed progress, including in socialization.
- For ninth grade, the district developed an IEP similar to the prior year’s program, with comparable academic and behavioral supports.
- Ariel’s parents became concerned about behavioral and social difficulties and requested changes, including the involvement of an outside autism consultant.
- The district retained Autism Consultation and Training, which issued recommendations; the district convened three post-report gatherings.
- The parents attended the first two meetings; the third was described by the district as staff training, while the parents asserted it functioned as an IEP meeting from which they were improperly excluded.
- The district revised Ariel’s IEP and adopted some, but not all, consultant recommendations; Ariel continued to receive passing grades and remained on track to advance.
- The parents unilaterally placed Ariel at the Pathway School (a private school) and sought tuition reimbursement, alleging both substantive denial of FAPE and procedural IDEA violations.

## Issues

1. Whether the district provided Ariel a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA through an IEP reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.
2. Whether excluding the parents from the third post-consultant gathering was a procedural IDEA violation that, by itself or combined with alleged program inadequacy, amounted to a denial of FAPE and supported tuition reimbursement.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the school district.
- The court held the district’s IEP provided FAPE because it was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and Ariel demonstrated academic and social progress.
- The court held that any procedural irregularity concerning the third gathering did not result in a loss of educational opportunity or seriously impede parental participation to the degree required to establish a denial of FAPE.
- Because FAPE was provided, the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral private-school placement.

## Legal Principles

- Under IDEA, a school district satisfies its duty if the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit; the statute does not require the best possible education or maximization of potential.
- Courts give due weight to educational judgments, particularly where the student’s actual performance shows meaningful educational progress.
- A school district must consider parental input and expert recommendations, but need not adopt all requested services if the overall IEP remains appropriate.
- Procedural violations of IDEA warrant relief only if they cause substantive harm, such as loss of educational opportunity or a serious interference with parental participation in the IEP process.
- Tuition reimbursement for unilateral private placement requires, at minimum, a showing that the public program denied FAPE; absent that showing, reimbursement is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit concluded that Ariel’s public-school IEP provided FAPE as shown by ongoing educational benefit, and that the alleged exclusion of parents from a disputed meeting did not cause the type of prejudice required to convert a procedural flaw into a denial of FAPE; therefore, the parents could not recover private-school tuition.


Kings Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Zelazny, 325 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2003)