## Facts

- Isadora “Dorie” Shapiro was a profoundly deaf child with a cochlear implant who attended the Central Institute for the Deaf (CID), a private out-of-state school, as part of a cochlear-implant study.
- CID tuition was covered for three school years; as funding ended, Dorie’s parents asked the local school district, Paradise Valley Unified School District No. 69 (PVUSD), to authorize continued placement at CID for 1994–1995 because PVUSD lacked a suitable program.
- PVUSD obtained permission to create a self-contained oral program for hearing-impaired students at a local elementary school and discussed the new program with the parents, who questioned whether it was ready and whether it would continue.
- PVUSD convened an IEP meeting on June 8, 1994 to develop Dorie’s IEP under the IDEA.
- The June 8, 1994 IEP meeting was held without Dorie’s parents and without a teacher/representative from CID, Dorie’s then-current educational placement.
- The IEP developed at that meeting lacked current educational levels and evaluation measures informed by CID’s work with Dorie.
- Dorie’s parents unilaterally enrolled her at CID for the 1994–1995 school year and sought reimbursement from PVUSD.

## Issues

1. Whether PVUSD’s failure to include Dorie’s parents and a representative of her current private placement at the IEP meeting was an IDEA procedural violation that amounted to a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
2. Whether, given the denial of FAPE and the private placement’s appropriateness, the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the costs of the 1994–1995 placement at CID.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment reversing the administrative decision that favored PVUSD.
- The court held PVUSD violated IDEA procedural requirements by excluding both the parents and a representative from Dorie’s current private placement from the June 8, 1994 IEP meeting.
- The court concluded these procedural violations denied Dorie a FAPE because the IEP process lacked meaningful participation by key participants and resulted in loss of educational opportunity.
- The court held the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the cost of Dorie’s 1994–1995 placement at CID.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires meaningful participation in IEP development by the child’s parents and by personnel knowledgeable about the child’s current educational program, including a representative of a current private placement when applicable.
- Procedural violations of the IDEA can constitute a denial of FAPE when they significantly impede parental participation or result in loss of educational opportunity, including by depriving the IEP team of necessary current performance information.
- When a district denies FAPE and parents unilaterally place a child in a private program that is appropriate, reimbursement may be awarded as equitable relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that PVUSD’s decision to conduct an IEP meeting without the parents and without a representative from the child’s current private school violated IDEA procedures in a way that denied FAPE, supporting reimbursement for the parents’ unilateral private placement.


Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 317 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003)