Legal Brief: Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education

I. Issues Presented

1. Whether the district violated IDEA by **predetermining** services and placement—i.e., deciding outside the IEP process without meaningful parent input.
2. Whether such predetermination constitutes a **procedural violation** that **significantly impedes** parental participation and thereby denies FAPE. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

II. Statement of Facts

Parents of a child with autism sought intensive ABA/Lovaas-style programming. The district allegedly maintained a **policy or practice** against 1:1 ABA and repeatedly presented IEPs that did not consider the parents’ requested methodology or data, while making key decisions **before** the IEP meetings. The ALJ found for the parents, the district court reversed, and the Sixth Circuit **reversed in part and remanded**, holding that the record supported a finding of **predetermination** and inadequate parent participation. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

III. Statutory & Regulatory Framework

A. Parent Participation

IDEA requires districts to ensure parents can attend and **meaningfully participate** in IEP meetings, with notice and alternative means if necessary. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

B. Prior Written Notice (PWN)

A district must provide written notice **before** it proposes or refuses to initiate/change identification, evaluation, placement, or provision of FAPE; the notice must state the action, reasons, data relied upon, options considered/rejected, other relevant factors, and safeguards. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

IV. Holding & Standard

The Sixth Circuit held that **predetermination**—arriving at IEP meetings with decisions already made and **refusing to consider** parents’ input—**violates IDEA’s procedural guarantees** and can **deprive parents of meaningful participation**, resulting in a denial of FAPE. The court found evidence that the district had a **predetermined policy** against ABA services and failed to consider the child’s individual needs, warranting reversal and remand. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

The court emphasized that teams must approach IEP meetings with an **open mind**, consider parental proposals, and make decisions **at** the meeting based on the student’s unique needs—not on blanket policies. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}

V. Analysis & Application

A. Predetermination vs. Preparation

IDEA permits staff to prepare draft IEP components, but **final decisions** must be made **with** the parents at the meeting after discussion. Evidence of **blanket refusals** (e.g., “we don’t do ABA here”) or decisions made in advance supports a predetermination finding. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}

B. Meaningful Participation Requires Consideration of Parent Data & Proposals

Regulations require consideration of evaluations and information provided by parents and afford them the right to participate fully. Ignoring parent-proffered data, declining to consider requested methodologies, or failing to discuss alternatives undermines meaningful participation. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}

C. Documentation through PWN

Where a district refuses a parental proposal (e.g., a specific methodology, increased service minutes, different placement), a compliant **PWN** must identify the action refused, the **reasons** and **data** relied upon, and the **options considered** and rejected. Thorough PWN supports transparency and review; insufficient PWN suggests decisions were not properly deliberated. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}

D. Relationship to FAPE and LRE

Procedural violations rise to a denial of FAPE when they **significantly impede** parental participation or substantively compromise the child’s program. In Deal, predetermination tainted the decision-making process, requiring remand. Teams must analyze **LRE** and the **continuum of placements** based on the child’s needs, not policy. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}

VI. Practical Implications for Teams

• Open-minded meetings: Staff may bring drafts but must be willing to change them after discussion; avoid categorical statements rejecting specific methodologies. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}
• Consider parental evidence: Review private evaluations/therapies and explain how they inform PLAAFP, goals, services, and placement. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}
• PWN rigor: For every proposal accepted/refused, issue PWN detailing the action, reasons, data, alternatives, and safeguards to create a clear administrative record. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}
• No blanket policies: Decisions must be individualized; “we don’t offer X” signals predetermination risk. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}
• LRE & continuum: Document consideration of supports in general education and alternatives across the continuum where appropriate. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}

VII. Conclusion

Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education stands for the principle that IDEA’s collaborative process must be **real**, not **pro forma**. Predetermination and failure to meaningfully consider parents’ proposals and data **violate procedural rights** and can **deny FAPE**. Districts must approach IEP meetings with an open mind, ground decisions in the individual student’s needs, and document their reasoning via robust PWN. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}