Brief 1

Bernadette Harris
May 25, 2009

EDA6232
Brief #1
Title/Caption: Whitehead v. School Board of Hillsborough County, 918 F. Supp. 1515,

24 IDELR 21, (M.D. FL 1996)
Facts: Keith and Nicole Whitehead, parents of Andrew Whitehead, sued the
Hillsborough, FL school district for failure to provide a free appropriate education for
their child with special needs. Their child was in need of speech and language therapy,
and the district refused to provide him services or design an I.E.P. for him. The parents
began at the district level, with a local hearing without a jury and were ordered to provide
an I.E.P. which included language therapy.
Procedural History: In prior hearing, the district had been ordered to provide the child
with an I.E.P. which included speech and language therapy. The district refused to
comply, arguing that they had an “unwritten practice” of not writing I.E.P.’s. Instead,
without notifying the parents, they tested the student and decided he didn’t need services,
and refused to provide any. The child’s language and speech continued to regress. The
following year, the parents requested a due process hearing, as entitled by I.D.E.A. The
judge ordered in favor of the parents, and ordered the district to provide a year of speech
and language therapy and an additional year of compensatory services, and then
reevaluate the child’s I.E.P. They awarded the parents attorney’s fees and costs, as well.
Five months later, the district filed to have the case reheard and the monetary award
reversed, during which time they still refused to enforce or implement the child’s I.E.P.!
The order was instead upheld, and the district still refused to comply. This decision on
the part of the school district resulted in the court entering an injunction that prohibits the
school board from failing to specify special education needs or to create I.E.P.’s. The
district still failed to provide services, so the parents appealed to the Florida Dept of
Education, who refused to intervene.
Issues: Was the Hillsborough County School District negligent in providing an

appropriate free education for this student, and for not implementing and following an
I.E.P. for the child’s special needs, according to the provisions of IDEA?
Holdings: The district willingly neglected the student’s special education needs, and
their obligation under I.D.E.A. to provide for them. Even after being ordered in a
preliminary local hearing to provide services, they deliberately failed to do so. The
district’s refusal to comply with the court’s decision contributed to the child’s language
and speech regression. The repeated negligence on the part of the district caused an
injunction to be imposed on the school district in a later court hearing. Despite this
injunction, the district continued to violate IDEA mandates by failing to implement the
IEP and allowing the student’s education to suffer.
Rationale: At the hearing, the officer found the district had committed 17 violations of
I.D.E.A., and had acted in bad faith. The district deliberately retaliated against the
parents by testing the child without consent and by not providing the parents with proper
complaint procedure information. They also chose to ignore the court order to implement
the child’s I.E.P., as well as the injunction that stated they could not specify special
education needs, nor elect to not provide I.E.P.’s. Under IDEA, districts, schools and
individual teachers are mandated to comply with all stipulations of students’ IEP’s,
without exception. The refusal to implement or comply with an IEP is considered willful
misconduct and bad faith on the part of the district.
Disposition: The courts awarded the parents $600,000 in damages! [ The parents are still
seeking further compensation through litigation.] The case is still active, as the parents
continue to exhaust all state level remedies and have their case heard by the Department
of Education. They attempted to appeal to the Dept. of Education for further punitive
damages, but the federal courts found the parents had not yet exhausted all attempts at
state remedies. If eventually able to appeal to the federal courts, the plaintiffs could also
cite the district’s violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which protects students with
disabilities’ rights to a free and appropriate public education.
Concurrence: None
1. Why did you choose this case? How does it specifically relate to your individual
project topic?
I chose this case because it involves litigation with regard to a district’s failure to
implement (or follow) a student’s I.E.P. This is the basis of my individual project, as I
am seeking to explore whether we, as a state, are currently efficiently servicing our
special needs students, and adhering to their I.E.P.’s in our public schools. I am also
exploring whether our current policy of inclusion is an adequate and effective means of
meeting the needs of these students. This case relates specifically, as it involves the
parents’ struggle to get the school district to provide the services their child needed, and
the court’s ruling in their favor. It is another example of the courts’ ruling against
educational entities who refuse to comply with modifications and accommodations noted
in student IEP’s.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the decision?
I completely agree with the court’s decision in this case. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A) states that schools, teachers and districts are bound
by law to comply with all terms stated in a student’s IEP. Neither the teacher, school or
district has the authority to implement a “non-IEP” policy. The school had been ordered
to supply special services to the child, and they refused. The district deliberately
retaliated against the decision by retesting the child without the parents’ consent, making
its own determination to terminate services, and then terminated them without notifying
the parents. The district also claimed to have an “unwritten” policy of not writing
I.E.P.’s, which violates another section of I.D.E.A.
3. As a future leader in education, how would you handle a similar situation?
If I found that I was working within the confines of a district that was trying to
implement a policy that blatantly violated federal law such as the aforementioned case
had, I would take the necessary steps to implement change. For example, I would collect
as much research and documentation to support my argument and bring it before the
district’s superintendent. If I were unsuccessful in that effort, I would then bring a
complaint before the school board, and eventually up the chain of command from there.
At the individual school level of administration, however, I would indeed have my ESE
team create and enforce the implementation of the student’s IEP and would be ready to
defend my actions if complaint were brought against me by the district.

Brief 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bernadette Harris

May 25, 2009

Title/Caption: Whitehead v. School Board of Hillsborough County, 918 F. Supp. 1515,

Issues: Was the Hillsborough County School District negligent in providing an

2. Do you agree or disagree with the decision?

You might also like