M.S. Ex Rel. Simchick v. Fairfax County School Board

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

M. S., a minor, by and through his 
parents and next friends, Carl and
Jacqueline Simchick; JACQUELINE
SIMCHICK,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
JACK DALE, individually and in his
official capacity as Superintendent
of Fairfax County Public Schools;
JOYCE SUYDAM, individually and in  No. 07-1555
her official capacity as Director of
Secondary Special Education
Services, Fairfax County Public
Schools; ELEANOR BARNES,
individually and in her official
capacity as the former Coordinator
of Special Education Monitoring
and Compliance, and currently as
Director of Student Services,
Fairfax County Public Schools;
MARTIN HUMBERTSON, individually
and in his official capacity as
Coordinator of Special Education
Monitoring and Compliance,
Fairfax County Public Schools;

2 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF 
EDUCATION; VIRGINIA BOARD OF
EDUCATION; JO LYNNE DEMARY,
individually and in her official
capacity as State Superintendent of
Public Instruction for the State of
Virginia; JUDITH DOUGLAS,
individually and in her official
capacity as Director of Dispute
Resolution and Administrative 
Services, Virginia Department of
Education,
Defendants.
CHILDREN’S LAW CENTER; VIRGINIA
OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND
ADVOCACY,
Amici Supporting Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(1:05-cv-01476-JCC)

Argued: September 23, 2008

Decided: January 14, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit
Judge, and Richard L. VOORHEES, United States District
Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by
designation.
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 3
Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded with instructions
in part by published opinion. Chief Judge Williams wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Voorhees
joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: William Henry Hurd, TROUTMAN & SAND-
ERS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. John Fran-
cis Cafferky, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, P.C., Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Siran S. Faulders, Ste-
phen C. Piepgrass, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, L.L.P., Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellants. Thomas J. Cawley, Jill Marie
Dennis, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for
Appellee. Adrienne E. Volenik, Director, Disability Law
Clinic, Alisa Ferguson, Third Year Law Student, Children’s
Law Center, RICHMOND SCHOOL OF LAW, University of
Richmond, Virginia; Jonathan Martinis, Managing Attorney,
VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVO-
CACY, Richmond, Virginia, for Amici Supporting Appel-
lants.

OPINION

WILLIAMS, Chief Judge:

M.S., a student with multiple disabilities in the Fairfax
County, Virginia schools, appeals from a district court order
in this action involving the application of the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"), codified at 20
U.S.C.A. § 1400 et seq. (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). In partic-
ular, M.S.’s parents appeal the district court’s denial of reim-
bursement for his parental placement from 2002-2005, and its
finding that the Fairfax County School Board’s 2005-2006
Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for M.S. was ade-
4 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
quate under the IDEA. Because the district court failed to
evaluate the parental placement on a year-by-year basis and
to consider whether partial reimbursement might be appropri-
ate, we vacate the district court’s denial of reimbursement for
the parental placement and remand for further proceedings.
We affirm the district court’s finding that the 2005-2006 IEP
developed by Fairfax County was adequate under the IDEA.

I.

A.

An overview of the IDEA and its relevant procedures will
help place the following discussion in context. Congress
passed the IDEA to provide disabled children with programs
"that emphasize[ ] special education and related services
designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for fur-
ther education, employment, and independent living." 20
U.S.C.A. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The IDEA requires all states
receiving federal education funds to provide disabled school-
children with a "free appropriate public education" ("FAPE").
20 U.S.C.A. § 1412(a)(1)(A). A FAPE "consists of educa-
tional instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs
of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are
necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction."
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-89 (1982) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

IEPs are the primary vehicle through which schools provide
a particular student with a FAPE. To that end, IEPs "must
contain statements concerning a disabled child’s level of func-
tioning, set forth measurable annual achievement goals,
describe the services to be provided, and establish objective
criteria for evaluating the child’s progress." MM ex rel. DM
v. Sch. Dist., 303 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2002); see 20
U.S.C.A. § 1414(d)(1)(A). Further, an IEP must ultimately be
"reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educa-
tional benefits." Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207.
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 5
The IDEA prescribes procedures for developing and chal-
lenging IEPs. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415. Parents may participate in
the IEP development process and may challenge IEPs they
believe are inadequate. § 1415(b)-(h). To challenge an IEP,
parents must present complaints to the school and request a
due process hearing. § 1415(b)(6), (f)(1)(A). These procedural
safeguards are "designed to ensure that the parents or guard-
ian of a child with a disability are each notified of decisions
affecting their child and given an opportunity to object to
these decisions." MM ex rel. DM, 303 F.3d at 527 (internal
quotation marks omitted).

B.

M.S. was born in 1988 and currently resides in Fairfax
County, Virginia, where he was enrolled in public school
from 1996-2002.1 M.S. has been diagnosed with mental retar-
dation, mild to moderate autism, and a significant communi-
cation disorder.2 This communication disorder contains two
components: severe verbal and oral motor dyspraxia, which
affects the mechanical abilities of speech, and auditory pro-
cessing delays.3 M.S. has a very limited ability to speak and
must frequently use sign language to communicate. M.S. also
suffers from severe deficits in his short-term memory.4 M.S.’s
1
M.S. began attending Fairfax County schools in the first grade. M.S.
was moved to the fifth grade after his second grade year, due to his age,
and thus did not have a third or fourth grade year. He remained in Fairfax
County schools from fifth grade through eighth grade.
2
Under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"),
codified at 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 et seq. (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), M.S.
suffers from "[m]ultiple disabilities," meaning that he has "concomitant
impairments . . . the combination of which causes such severe educational
needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs
solely for one of the impairments." 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(7) (2008).
3
Dyspraxia "is a speech disorder that interferes with [M.S.]’s ability to
initiate and sequence motor movements for speech. . . . [It] is character-
ized by the loss of ability to consistently position the articulators for
speech. Unintelligible speech is the result in children . . . ." (J.A. at 1514.)
4
Specifically, M.S.’s working memory is that of a two-year old.
6 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
IQ is generally measured at between 37 and 41, the approxi-
mate mental functioning of a four-year old.

Although Fairfax County prepared annual IEPs for M.S. in
each of the six years he was enrolled in Fairfax County
schools, he made little progress while enrolled there. In fact,
during these six years, M.S. only mastered the academic
objectives specified in his IEPs once. Moreover, by 2002, the
end of M.S.’s eighth grade year, he could only make approxi-
mately fifteen signs for sign language and produce roughly
twelve to fifteen words intelligibly. His ability to identify
words was significantly limited: on one test, administered
three times during the eighth grade, he was able to identify
only three words: "a," "I," and "no."5 (J.A. at 1027.) He was
unable to count higher than six and became discouraged in his
efforts to communicate.

C.

On December 21, 2001, M.S.’s parents initiated a due pro-
cess hearing, suggesting placement at the Lindamood-Bell
Center, a facility focusing on the "building blocks" of com-
munication — phonemic awareness, symbol imagery, and
concept imagery. On March 5, 2002, Fairfax County proposed
to pay for twelve weeks of attendance at Lindamood-Bell on
the condition that M.S. return to Fairfax County schools at
completion of the twelve weeks. The parents declined this
offer.

On May 28, 2002, following a formal hearing finding that
M.S. suffers from several disabilities, including autism, Fair-
fax County finally acknowledged that M.S. should be classi-
fied as having "[m]ultiple [d]isabilities."6 (J.A. at 1122.)
5
His reports also show, however, that at various times he was able to
identify other words, such as "map," "mom," "big bug," and "A Big Dog
A little cat." (J.A. at 502-508.)
6
It appears that M.S.’s parents had unsuccessfully attempted to have his
autism recognized for years, but that Fairfax County resisted this diagnosis
despite at least three physician reports from as early as 1996 that sug-
gested an atypical autism diagnosis would have been appropriate.
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 7
Thereafter, Fairfax County and M.S.’s parents met to discuss
an IEP for 2002-2003, M.S.’s freshman year in high school.
Fairfax County rejected the parents’ request to place M.S. at
Lindamood-Bell, and recommended an IEP similar to those of
the preceding six years. Specifically, Fairfax County’s IEP
contained no assurances that M.S. would receive the one-on-
one instruction that his parents requested. The IEP provided
two hours per week of speech and language therapy, one-and-
a-half hours per week of physical education, and one-half
hour per week of written language, in addition to other
courses, including reading, independence and community
skills, communication, articulation, and oral motor and math
skills. In total, twenty-three-and-one-half hours per week of
special education in both small-group special education
classes and general education classes with special education
support were to be provided.

On June 24, 2002, the parents rejected the proposed 2002-
2003 IEP and informed Fairfax County that they intended to
enroll M.S. privately at Lindamood-Bell. At the parents’
request, Fairfax County prepared additional IEPs for the
2002-2005 school years, all of which provided a life skills
program to address work behavior, social skills, and peer
interaction, in addition to academics. None, however, guaran-
teed any one-on-one instruction.

D.

After deciding to remove M.S. from Fairfax County public
schools, but before deciding on Lindamood-Bell, his parents
contacted at least three private schools in the area. M.S. was
denied admission to two, and the third school had no openings
at the time. Accordingly, M.S.’s parents crafted the following
education program for M.S., which focused primarily on one-
on-one academic education as opposed to group classroom
settings:

Lindamood-Bell Center: one-on-one instruction for
five days per week (six hours per day during the
8 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
school year and four hours per day during the sum-
mer);

Sign Language: one-on-one instruction from a
licensed Virginia teacher (one hour per week);

Speech and Language Therapy: one-on-one speech
and language therapy from Building Blocks Ther-
apy, LLC and Kids Communication Center (three
hours per week);

Physical Therapy: participation in group activities
such as the Broad Run Riding School, the therapeu-
tic program at Dance Abilities, and the Special
Olympics equestrian program (two to three hours per
week);

Vocational Training: cutting grass in the neighbor-
hood for $20/hour.

The parents maintained this program from 2002-2006, all
four of M.S.’s high-school years, and paid all associated
costs. The main component of the parents’ program was
Lindamood-Bell.

Lindamood-Bell is a learning center focused on the "build-
ing blocks" of communication — phonemic awareness, sym-
bol imagery, and concept imagery. It is neither a school nor
a special education facility, and it does not require teachers to
be certified in special education. Lindamood-Bell is "not
designed to provide curriculum," but rather to develop "un-
derlying skills . . . necessary in order for the students to be
able to access the curriculum within their traditional school
settings." (J.A. at 1973.)

Lindamood-Bell is on the approved-list of Virginia Supple-
mental Education Services Providers for Virginia and Fairfax
County, and its services have been used as a remedy in other
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 9
circumstances where a school district has violated the IDEA
by failing to provide a disabled child with a FAPE.7

Fairfax County and Lindamood-Bell both tracked M.S.’s
progress at Lindamood-Bell from 2002-2005. In M.S.’s 2003-
2004 IEP, Fairfax County noted that M.S. could "read, with-
out prompts, homemade books," (J.A. at 1108), had "115
sight and decodable words," (J.A. at 1108), and could "iden-
tify numbers 1-10 . . . [and] count out money for taxi ride[s],"
(J.A. at 1113.) In the 2004-2005 IEP, Fairfax County noted
that M.S. could now "recognize and/or decode 156 words,"
(J.A. at 1629), and that M.S. was "able to greet, protest, pro-
vide information, show interest, inquire, comment and
remind," (J.A. at 1624). By 2005, the IEP recognized that
M.S. could count "numbers 1-12 accurately and with varying
accuracy to 15." (J.A. at 343.) Finally, in the 2006-2007 IEP,
Fairfax County recognized that M.S. had "a vocabulary of
about 500 words and phrases, that he [was] learning and
reviewing," (S.J.A. at 344), and that he could "count things in
his environment . . . [and] count [numbers] 11-15 fairly con-
sistently," (S.J.A. at 347).

Lindamood-Bell also recorded M.S.’s progress, noting that
a review of "daily clinical records, observations, program
checklists, [and] just interacting with [M.S.]," revealed prog-
ress at Lindamood-Bell. (J.A. at 2013-14.) This progress
included M.S.’s increased ability to sign, understand, and ver-
balize simple sentences, as well as his ability to produce writ-
ten notes. Although these notes were exceedingly simple in
their content ("Dear Dad I hope you feel better. Love [M.S.]"
7
See, e.g., Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 480 F. Supp. 2d 1331,
1351 n.8 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (noting that the ALJ offered a prospective rem-
edy that included 5 hours per week of intensive multisensory reading ser-
vices at Lindamood-Bell Center); C.C. ex rel. Mrs. D. v. Granby Bd. of
Educ., 453 F. Supp. 2d 569, 571-72 (D. Conn. 2006) (noting that school
board did not appeal either the Hearing Officer’s decision to place student
in Lindamood-Bell reading program for twelve weeks or its order that the
school provide transportation).
10 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
(J.A. at 1601)), M.S., by contrast, had shown almost no writ-
ing ability when he left the Fairfax County public schools.

Although M.S. made minimal progress on standardized
testing across a broad range of subjects from 2002-2005, none
of Fairfax County’s witnesses could testify that M.S. made no
progress while at Lindamood-Bell. In fact, Dr. Ticknor, the
school psychologist, wrote in her 2004 report that M.S., who
was initially reserved, became increasingly comfortable and
appeared to enjoy social interactions with adults and noted
that she was "struck by [M.S’s] desire for social connection
. . . and the lack of . . . overly self-focused behaviors typical
of many young people with Pervasive Developmental Disor-
der." (J.A. at 817.)

E.

From 2002-2005, M.S. remained at Lindamood-Bell.
M.S.’s parents continued to negotiate with Fairfax County
during this time, sending numerous emails and letters in the
eighteen months following the June 24, 2002 IEP meeting.
Finally, in June 2004, M.S.’s parents filed a request for a due
process hearing challenging the IEPs for 2002-2003, 2003-
2004, and 2004-2005. M.S.’s parents, in addition to challeng-
ing these three IEPs, also requested reimbursement for the
costs of sending M.S. to Lindamood-Bell and of acquiring the
other service providers for M.S.

The hearing officer ("HO") held a due process hearing over
several days in October and November 2004. Both sides pre-
sented testimony from numerous witnesses. Fairfax County’s
witnesses generally testified that M.S. made little progress at
Lindamood-Bell, as shown in standardized testing, and that he
needed far more peer interaction than provided at Lindamood-
Bell. M.S.’s witnesses, on the other hand, testified that M.S.
had never advanced at Fairfax County schools and that inten-
sive one-on-one instruction was necessary to keep M.S. on
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 11
task and give him a chance to develop underlying communi-
cation skills.

Faced with conflicting testimony from interested parties,
the HO ruled that the three IEPS from 2002-2005 were invalid
under the IDEA, and that Lindamood-Bell was an inappropri-
ate placement. Therefore, he awarded no reimbursement for
M.S.’s time at Lindamood-Bell.8 Driving the HO’s decision
was his conclusion that "[M.S.] need[ed] both the experience
of group teaching and the interaction with peers as well as an
intensive one-on-one academic program." (J.A. at 2351.) To
that end, the HO concluded that the IEPs were invalid because
they focused too much on group interaction and too little on
one-on-one instruction. Likewise, the HO concluded that
Lindamood-Bell was not an appropriate placement because it
focused too much on one-on-one instruction and had little
group interaction. The HO also determined that Lindamood-
Bell was inappropriate because it was not an accredited
school and it failed to offer vocational training. The HO also
directed Fairfax County to provide an appropriate IEP for the
2005-2006 school year.

Both parties sought review of the HO’s decision in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir-
ginia. The district court, as permitted by the IDEA, see 20
U.S.C.A. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii) (requiring district court to hear
additional evidence "at the request of a party"), held an evi-
dentiary hearing to take additional evidence before rendering
a decision. On May 8, 2007, the district court affirmed the
HO’s decision. The district court also upheld the 2005-2006
IEP as providing a FAPE.

M.S.’s parents noted a timely appeal, and we possess juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 2006).
8
The HO did, however, award reimbursement for sign language and
speech/language therapy services that M.S. received under his parents’
program.
12 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
II.

On appeal, M.S.’s parents contend: (1) the district court
erred by not awarding any reimbursement for Lindamood-
Bell; and (2) the district court erred by concluding that the
2005-2006 IEP was valid.9 We address each claim in turn.

A.

In a proceeding under the IDEA, we conduct a modified de
novo review, giving "due weight" to the underlying adminis-
trative proceedings. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; Doyle v. Arling-
ton County Sch. Bd., 953 F.2d 100, 103 (4th Cir. 1991)
("Generally, in reviewing state administrative decisions in
IDEA cases, courts are required to make an independent deci-
sion based on a preponderance of the evidence, while giving
due weight to state administrative proceedings."). We do not,
however, "substitute [our] own notions of sound educational
policy for those of local school authorities." Hartmann v. Lou-
doun County Bd. of Educ., 118 F.3d 996, 999 (4th Cir. 1997).
When a district court has heard and considered additional evi-
dence, we review its findings of fact for clear error. MM ex
rel. DM, 303 F.3d at 531.

B.

We first turn to the parents’ contention that the district
court erred in not awarding any reimbursement for M.S.’s
education at Lindamood-Bell. The IDEA provides for parental
reimbursement for private placements if (1) the school district
fails to provide a FAPE and (2) the parental placement is
9
The parents also challenge the district court’s failure to grant reim-
bursement for various speech/language and sign language placement
expenses. Because these arguments were not presented to the district
court, they have been forfeited. See Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp.,
181 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999) ("Generally, issues that were not raised
in the district court will not be addressed on appeal.").
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 13
appropriate. Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of
Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985). Because Fairfax County
does not dispute that the 2002-2005 IEPs failed to provide
M.S. with a FAPE, the only issue before us is whether the
Lindamood-Bell placement was appropriate. Like an IEP, a
parental placement is appropriate if it is "reasonably calcu-
lated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Car-
ter v. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four, 950 F.2d 156, 163
(4th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In challenging the district court’s decision denying reim-
bursement, the parents focus on three alleged errors: (1) the
failure to consider the appropriateness of Lindamood-Bell
placement on a year-by-year basis, as well as the appropriate-
ness of partial reimbursement, (2) the inappropriate consider-
ation of M.S.’s lack of progress, and (3) the application of the
least-restrictive environment test to a parental placement. We
now consider each argument.

1. Year-by-Year Analysis and Partial Reimbursement

The parents contend that the district court erred by failing
to evaluate each year of the Lindamood-Bell placement on an
independent basis. We agree.

As noted, when evaluating whether reimbursement is
appropriate for a parental placement, we determine (1)
whether the IEP provided by the school district failed to pro-
vide a FAPE, and, if so, (2) whether the parental placement
was appropriate. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369. By statute, IEPs
are evaluated "periodically, but not less frequently than annu-
ally." 20 U.S.C.A. § 1414(d)(4)(A)(i); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S.
305, 311 (1988). Of course, because the finding of an invalid
IEP for a particular school year is a necessary precursor to
reimbursement for a parental placement, we necessarily must
also consider the appropriateness of a particular placement on
the same year-by-year basis. Evaluating both IEPs and paren-
tal placements on a yearly basis simply acknowledges that
14 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
what is "reasonably calculated" to confer some educational
benefit on the child may change over time.10

Here, the district court considered M.S.’s time at
Lindamood-Bell in its entirety instead of separating out each
year. We believe this was error, and, accordingly, we vacate
the district court’s decision that Lindamood-Bell was an inap-
propriate placement and remand the case for year-by-year
analysis of whether Lindamood-Bell was an appropriate
placement. Because the district court has found that Fairfax
County’s IEPs violated the IDEA, it may award reimburse-
ment if it finds any year of instruction at Lindamood-Bell to
be "reasonably calculated" to confer some educational benefit
on M.S.

Moreover, the district court must also consider whether,
given the equitable nature of the IDEA, see Burlington, 471
U.S. at 374 (noting that "equitable considerations are relevant
in fashioning relief"), some partial reimbursement is appropri-
ate for any given year.11 A district court has the power to
10
For example, at the time M.S. was initially placed at Lindamood-Bell,
his parents had unsuccessfully tried to place him in three other schools.
Lindamood-Bell was willing to accept M.S. and believed he would benefit
from its services. Furthermore, audiologist Dr. Lucker recommended
Lindamood-Bell to the parents after careful consideration based upon the
individualized program offered to M.S. At the moment of initial enroll-
ment, M.S.’s parents, like all parents beginning an educational program
they hope will benefit their special needs child, could not have known if
their son would ultimately fail to make progress. Where a child does fail
to make progress, full reimbursement for subsequent school years in the
same program is likely inappropriate. See infra Section II.B.2 (discussing
district court’s consideration of lack of progress).
11
Throughout its brief, Fairfax County argues that any equitable consid-
erations weighing in favor of the parents’ request for reimbursement are
outweighed by the parents’ delay in filing this suit until 2004, after M.S.
had already spent two years at Lindamood-Bell. We decline the opportu-
nity to impose filing deadlines not issued by Congress when authorizing
these equitable remedies. First, the parents have presented evidence that
the delay was due to their unsuccessful efforts to negotiate with Fairfax
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 15
"grant such relief as [it] determines is appropriate," 20
U.S.C.A. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii), in light of a school system’s
failure to provide educational benefit to a disabled student.
This language confers "broad discretion" on the court in fash-
ioning an appropriate remedy. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369;
see also Draper v. Atl. Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1283-
90 (11th Cir. 2008) (upholding an award of six years of pro-
spective compensatory education at a private placement); L.E.
v. Ramsey Bd. of Educ., 435 F.3d 384, 394 (3d Cir. 2006)
(upholding an award of partial reimbursement for the differ-
ence between the amount of time actually offered by the
school board’s IEP and the amount of time that should have
been offered to a disabled student for speech therapy); Adams
v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (remanding
to determine whether partial reimbursement is appropriate
where parents supplemented the school program).

And, the Supreme Court has instructed that "[c]ourts fash-
ioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must con-
sider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and
reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required."
Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 16
(1993) (emphasis added). In determining whether partial
reimbursement is appropriate, "the district court may consider
the following factors, among others: the existence of other,
perhaps more appropriate, substitute placements, the effort
expended by [the] parents in securing alternative place-

County to resolve their concerns out of court. Second, the Supreme Court
has recognized that "the review process is ponderous," and held reim-
bursement to be an appropriate remedy for precisely that reason. Sch.
Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 370
(1985). Even if the administrative review process had been completed
within Virginia’s 45-day statutory window, "[a] final judicial decision on
the merits of an IEP will in most instances come a year or more after the
school term covered by that IEP has passed." Id.
16 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
ments[,] and the general cooperative or uncooperative posi-
tion of [the school board]." Adams, 195 F.3d at 1151.12

The equitable nature of the IDEA statute does not mean, of
course, that courts are at liberty to award reimbursement out
of the blue. Rather, as noted above, it is clear that the IDEA
provides for reimbursement only if (1) the school district fails
to provide a FAPE and (2) the parental placement is "reason-
ably calculated to enable the child to receive educational ben-
efits." Carter, 950 F.2d at 163 (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369. These two
findings lie at the heart of the statute.

In this regard, we note that the hearing officer and district
court made findings that Lindamood-Bell had fallen short in
several significant respects, namely in the failure to provide
the life skills and vocational training and the group interaction
needed by M.S. for his instruction. We accord great deference
to such findings under our precedent. See MM ex rel. DM, 303
F.3d at 531 (holding that "findings of fact made in administra-
tive proceedings are considered to be prima facie correct,"
and that "where a district court has heard and considered addi-
tional evidence, . . . we review its findings of fact for clear
error"). Whether the identified shortcomings of Lindamood-
Bell were of such a nature as to preclude the realization of an
educational benefit for M.S. is, of course, for the trier of fact
to determine on remand. However, they do not preclude as a
matter of law the possibility that the one-on-one instruction
provided by Lindamood-Bell warranted some reimbursement.
Therefore, if the district court, on remand, again determines
that full reimbursement for Lindamood-Bell is inappropriate
for one or more school years, it must nonetheless consider
whether partial reimbursement is appropriate in any year for
12
For example, M.S.’s parents unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate
with Fairfax County for more one-on-one instruction in the public school
setting and were unable, despite several attempts, to place M.S. in other
private schools.
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 17
the one-on-one services that Lindamood-Bell provided to
M.S. Here, the HO and the district court concluded that M.S.
needed significant one-on-one instruction that Fairfax County
failed to provide for 2002-2005. M.S. v. Fairfax County Sch.
Bd., No. 1:05cv1476, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33735, at *32-
*33 (E.D. Va. 2007). Lindamood-Bell provided thirty hours
per week of one-on-one instruction in the "building blocks" of
communication. If the district court determines that any time
spent at Lindamood-Bell during any or all of the 2002-2005
school years was "reasonably calculated to enable [M.S.] to
receive educational benefits," M.S.’s parents may be reim-
bursed for such period as the district court deems appropriate.
Carter, 950 F.2d at 163 (internal quotation marks omitted);
see also Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369.

2. Actual Progress and the Least Restrictive Environment

Having remanded the case for further proceedings, we now
address two other legal arguments made by M.S.’s parents
that are relevant on remand: the district court erred by (1)
considering M.S.’s lack of progress and (2) applying the least
restrictive environment requirement to their private placement.13

The district court found, as a factual matter, that M.S. made
minimal actual progress at Lindamood-Bell. M.S., No.
1:05cv1476, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33735, at *44-*45. The
parents contend that, because the IDEA speaks of programs
"reasonably calculated" to provide an educational benefit,
M.S.’s actual progress while at Lindamood-Bell is irrelevant
as to whether his initial placement there was appropriate.14

We begin by noting that the parents’ argument lacks sup-
13
"[O]ur court regularly issues opinions to provide guidance on remand
in the interest of judicial efficiency." Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d
458, 466 n.2 (4th Cir. 2007).
14
As discussed above, the parents dispute whether M.S. made any actual
progress. For the purposes of this section, we assume he did not.
18 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
port in our caselaw. Although other circuits have held that an
IEP’s "appropriateness is judged prospectively so that any
lack of progress under a particular IEP . . . does not render
that IEP inappropriate," Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d
520, 530 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Roland M.
v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990)
("An IEP is a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for
‘appropriateness,’ an IEP must take into account what was,
and was not, objectively reasonable when the snapshot was
taken, that is, at the time the IEP was promulgated."), we have
concluded that, in some situations, evidence of actual prog-
ress may be relevant to a determination of whether a chal-
lenged IEP was reasonably calculated to confer some
educational benefit, see MM ex rel. DM, 303 F.3d at 532
(finding error where the district court concluded that the
1995-96 IEP was inadequate because it "failed to consider the
actual educational progress" made by the student during the
1995-96 school year). To be sure, however, progress, or the
lack thereof, while important, is not dispositive. See Rowley,
458 U.S. at 207 n.28 ("[T]he achievement of passing marks
and advancement from grade to grade will be one important
factor in determining educational benefit." (emphasis added)).

Here, the district court’s decision correctly followed prece-
dent. The court looked at M.S.’s actual progress on standard-
ized tests, but only as one factor. Rather, the court also joined
with the HO in finding that M.S. required both one-on-one
and group instruction, as well as vocational and social educa-
tion. Accordingly, the district court’s decision to consider
M.S.’s actual progress as a factor in determining whether the
Lindamood-Bell placement was proper.

We also believe the district court did not err in handling the
least restrictive environment requirement in the IDEA. Under
the IDEA, schools must place disabled students in the least
restrictive environment to achieve a FAPE. Thus, a disabled
child should participate in the same activities as nondisabled
children to the "maximum extent appropriate." 20 U.S.C.A.
 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 19
§ 1412(a)(5)(A). As we have explained, "[m]ainstreaming of
handicapped children into regular school programs . . . is not
only a laudable goal but is also a requirement of the Act."
DeVries v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 882 F.2d 876, 878 (4th
Cir. 1989).

The district court agreed with the HO that the Lindamood-
Bell placement was "highly restrictive" by IDEA standards.
M.S., No. 1:05cv1476, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33735, at *49.
Although we have never held that parental placements must
meet the least restrictive environment requirement, see Car-
ter, 950 F.2d at 160 (noting that "the [IDEA]’s preference for
mainstreaming was aimed at preventing schools from segre-
gating handicapped students from the general student body"
and that "the school district ha[d] presented no evidence that
the [IDEA’s preference for mainstreaming] was meant to
restrict parental options when the public schools fail to com-
ply with the requirements of the [IDEA] (emphasis in origi-
nal)), the district court’s consideration of Lindamood-Bell’s
restrictive nature was proper because it considered the restric-
tive nature only as a factor in determining whether the place-
ment was appropriate under the IDEA, not as a dispositive
requirement. M.S., No. 1:05cv1476, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
33735, at *49; see also M.S ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231
F.3d 96, 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (recognizing that "parents seeking
an alternative placement may not be subject to the same main-
streaming requirements as a school board," but concluding
that the IDEA’s mainstreaming requirement "remains a con-
sideration that bears upon a parent’s choice of an alternative
placement and may be considered by the hearing officer in
determining whether the placement was appropriate").
C. Validity of 2005-2006 IEP
Finally, we consider whether the 2005-2006 IEP was ade-
quate to provide M.S. with a FAPE. Pursuant to the HO’s
order, Fairfax County prepared an IEP for 2005-2006 that
provided 12.75 hours per week of individual instruction, in
20 M. S. v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
addition to 17.25 hours of the group and vocational instruc-
tion that the HO determined were important to M.S.’s educa-
tion. The IEP also provided for additional one-on-one
assistance as the educators deemed necessary. The district
court found the IEP adequate to provide M.S. with a FAPE
because it complied with the HO’s order to provide "reliable
and intensive" one-on-one education. M.S., No. 1:05cv1476,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33735, at *50.
The parents contend that the 12.75 hours per week of one-
on-one instruction is insufficient to provide M.S. with a
FAPE. Although trivial academic advancement will not pro-
duce a FAPE, Hall ex rel. Hall v. Vance County Bd. of Educ.,
774 F.2d 629, 636 (4th Cir. 1985), the IDEA does not require
a perfect education, MM ex rel. DM, 303 F.3d at 526 ("The
IDEA does not . . . require a school district to provide a dis-
abled child with the best possible education."). The IEP must
be "calculated to confer some educational benefit on a dis-
abled child." A.B. ex rel D.B. v. Lawson, 354 F.3d 315, 319
(4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis
in original). Under this standard, we cannot say the district
court clearly erred in determining the 2005-2006 IEP ade-
quate.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part with
instructions for the district court to consider the Lindamood-
Bell placement on a year-by-year basis and to determine
whether any partial reimbursement is appropriate, consistent
with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS IN PART