## Facts

- Robert Clark, age 12, was a special-education student with Autism-Asperger’s Syndrome and a learning disability, with significant behavioral issues that impeded peer interaction and learning when unmanaged.
- A prior dispute ended in a settlement requiring placement in a self-contained classroom with limited mainstreaming, a full-time paraprofessional, and specific behavioral interventions and strategies.
- The School District developed IEPs in August and October 1997 incorporating the placement and paraprofessional provisions and anticipating ongoing consideration of additional mainstreaming.
- The IEPs’ behavior components primarily listed behavioral goals and objectives and did not include a timely, detailed, coherent behavior intervention plan; staff relied largely on inconsistent, ad hoc techniques.
- The District did not implement an adequate, integrated behavior plan until late in the school year, after Robert’s behavior had worsened.
- An administrative panel found the District denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because the IEPs lacked an adequate behavior intervention plan and Robert did not receive educational benefit.
- On judicial review, the district court affirmed the FAPE denial, awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the Clarks as prevailing parents, and denied expert-witness fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the School District provided Robert Clark a FAPE under the IDEA when it failed to timely develop and implement a specific, coherent behavior management plan addressing his disability-related behaviors.
2. Whether prevailing parents under the IDEA may recover expert-witness fees in addition to attorney’s fees and taxable costs absent explicit statutory authorization.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment upholding the administrative determination that the District denied FAPE.
- The court held that an IEP that lacks timely, specific behavioral strategies and coordinated implementation can be substantively inadequate where behavior interferes with learning and mainstreaming.
- The court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the Clarks as prevailing parties.
- The court affirmed the denial of expert-witness fees because the IDEA does not expressly authorize recovery of such fees beyond generally taxable witness costs.

## Legal Principles

- A FAPE under the IDEA requires an IEP reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit; when disability-related behavior substantially interferes with learning, the IEP must include and the District must implement appropriate behavioral interventions.
- A plan that states behavioral goals without specific, coherent strategies and consistent implementation may fail to provide educational benefit and may constitute a denial of FAPE.
- In IDEA fee-shifting, “attorneys’ fees” does not include expert-witness fees absent explicit statutory authorization; recoverable witness fees are limited by general federal cost statutes.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held the School District denied FAPE by failing to timely implement a specific, consistent behavior management plan necessary for Robert Clark to benefit educationally, and it also held that prevailing parents may not recover expert-witness fees under the IDEA without express statutory authorization.


Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2003)