## Facts

- Luke P., a child with autism, attended a Colorado public school district’s schools from kindergarten through second grade and received special education under IDEA through individualized education programs (IEPs).
- Multiple evaluators found Luke made progress in the public school setting on the educational goals developed for him, including progress on IEP objectives and classroom behavior.
- Outside school, Luke had serious behavioral and functioning problems, including inappropriate and sometimes violent behavior at home and in public, significant sleep difficulties, and limited ability to generalize skills learned at school to home (e.g., toilet training).
- Concerned about escalating behaviors, Luke’s parents unilaterally withdrew him from the public program and enrolled him in a private residential program providing 24-hour services.
- The parents sought reimbursement for the residential tuition, asserting the district denied Luke a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because the IEPs did not adequately address generalization and community/home functioning.

## Issues

1. Whether a school district denies FAPE under IDEA when a student makes measurable progress on IEP goals at school but struggles to generalize skills and function appropriately at home and in the community.
2. Whether such circumstances require a publicly funded residential placement and justify parents’ unilateral-placement tuition reimbursement.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and held the district did not deny Luke a FAPE.
- Because Luke’s IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and he made school-based progress on IEP goals, the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the residential placement.
- The court treated residential placement as an exceptional remedy, available only when necessary for the child to receive an appropriate education, not merely because it might better address non-school difficulties.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits; it does not require schools to maximize a child’s potential.
- In the Tenth Circuit, FAPE is satisfied by “some educational benefit” that is more than de minimis, commonly assessed through progress toward IEP goals in the school setting.
- Parents seeking reimbursement for a unilateral private placement must show (at minimum) an IDEA violation by the district and that the private placement is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit.
- A student’s inability to generalize school-learned skills to home and community, even alongside serious out-of-school behavioral problems, does not by itself establish denial of FAPE where the child is making educational progress under the school’s IEP.
- Courts should give substantial deference to educational judgments and avoid substituting judicial preferences for school authorities’ determinations on educational policy and methodology.

## Conclusion

The court held that IDEA was not violated where the student made measurable progress on school-based IEP goals, even though he had severe behavioral problems and limited generalization outside school; residential placement was not shown to be educationally necessary, so tuition reimbursement was denied.


Thompson R-2J Sch. Dist. v. Luke P., 540 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2008)