James F. v. Clear Creek Independent School District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JAMES F.,
Plaintiff.
V.
CLEAR CREEK INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-cv-02063
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff James F., a minor child, by and through his next friends and parents
Christine F. and Michael F., brought this lawsuit seeking review of an unfavorable
decision 	in 	an 	administrative 	hearing 	regarding 	James 	F.’s 	disability
accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).
Pending before me are competing motions for judgment filed by Defendant Clear
Creek Independent School District (“CCISD”) (Dkt. 39) and James F. (Dkt. 41).
Having reviewed the briefing, the record, and the applicable law, CCISD’s motion
is granted and James F.’s motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
A. 	JAMES F.’S E DUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
This case centers on the 2021–2022 school year, when James F. attended
Brookwood Elementary School in CCISD as a fourth-grade student. James F. had
first been designated as eligible for special education services as a kindergarten
student in the 2017–2018 school year based on attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (“ADHD”).
In the fall of 2020, CCISD conducted a triennial reevaluation of James F. As
part of that evaluation process, James F.’s mother “expressed concerns in the area
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 17

2
of vision.” 2 AR 566.1 CCISD completed updated assessments in the areas of
language, functional vision assessment, learning media assessment, occupational
therapy, psychological, cognitive, academic achievement, and assistive technology.
See id. at 563–74.
In October 2020, Dr. Marcia Moore diagnosed James F. with cortical visual
impairment (“CVI”). See 3 AR 726. CVI “is a decreased visual response due to a
neurological 	problem 	affecting 	the 	visual 	part 	of 	the 	brain.” 	Id. 	at 	739.
Characteristics of CVI include distinct color preference, delayed visual response,
abnormalities of visual field, difficulty with unfamiliar visual stimuli, preference
for looking at lights, and unusual visual behaviors. See id. at 740.
After 	conducting 	a 	full 	and 	individualized 	evaluation 	(“FIE”) 	dated
December 4, 2020, CCISD found James F. eligible for special education services as
a student with a specific learning disability in reading fluency and other health
impairment 	(“OHI”) 	for 	ADHD, 	convergence 	insufficiency, 	binocular 	vision
dysfunction (“BVD”), chronic inflammatory response syndrome (“CIRS”), and
CVI. See 2 AR 551, 561–62. James F. also met the Texas Education Agency’s criteria
for dyslexia and dysgraphia. See id. at 549.
The FIE did not find that James F. qualified as visually impaired (“VI”). See
id. at 488. Laura Coughlin, a certified teacher of the visually impaired (“TVI”) and
retired teacher at CCISD, evaluated James F. and found that his CVI did not result
in an adverse impact on his performance in an educational environment. See id. at
509.
The Admission Review and Dismissal Committee (“ARDC”) developed an
individualized education program (“IEP”) for James F. in December 2020. See id.
at 462–85. The ARDC met on March 30, 2021 to make minor corrections to the
IEP. See id. at 455. The ARDC met again on May 26, 2021 to review James F.’s
1 The Administrative Record (“AR”) was provided to the court on a USB drive. See Dkt. 17.
All citations to the Administrative Record refer first to the Volume, then to the specific
page number with leading zeros omitted.
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 17

3
performance on the December 2020 IEP. See id. at 445–54. Because James F. had
already met certain goals, the IEP was updated. See id. James F.’s parents disagree
with his eligibility determination and believe that James F. should be labeled as a
student who is VI with a learning disability in written expression.
At the beginning of the 2021–2022 school year, James F.’s mother expressed
disagreement with the IEP developed at the May 2021 ARDC meeting and
requested another ARDC meeting. The ARDC met again on September 27, 2021.
At that meeting, the ARDC included four goals in James F.’s IEP: (1) James F. will
read 85 words correctly (something he had already mastered); (2) James F. will
develop a draft writing satisfying certain requirements; (3) James F. will read
grade-level text fluently at a rate of 130 correct words per minute in eight out of
nine opportunities; and (4) James F. will match letter sounds and letter names to
form words with long vowels. See id. at 436–47. The ARDC identified services and
support necessary to implement the IEP. See id. at 434. These accommodations
included 80 minutes per week of individual academic support to address his
reading fluency issues, 60 minutes per week of in-class support focused on writing,
and occupational therapy to assist with his dysgraphia and writing. See id.
James F.’s fourth grade teachers implemented his IEP. Michelle Smalligan,
a special education teacher, provided in-class support for James F. Despite his
advancement and success in the classroom, James F. insists that CCISD has failed
to address his CVI because of its mistaken belief that his CVI has no educational
impact in the school setting. See Dkt. 1 at 2. James F. argues that he struggles with
reading, spelling, and handwriting because of CCISD’s ignorance regarding CVI.
James 	F.’s 	mother 	retained 	an 	independent 	TVI, 	Samantha 	Zauner-
Undesser, to assess the impact of James F.’s CVI on the learning process. Zauner-
Undesser found that James F. displayed difficulties with facial recognition,
behavioral concerns, and visual field neglect caused by his CVI. See 3 AR 637–42.
Zauner-Undesser 	further 	determined 	that 	James 	F.’s 	CVI 	impacted 	him
functionally in all settings, and that he requires a TVI to address his CVI needs
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 17

4
throughout the entire school day—as well as instruction in self-advocacy and
accommodations in the classroom. See id. at 649–53.
The ARDC met again in December 2021. The ARDC removed several goals
that James F. had mastered (Goals 1 and 2) and continued certain goals that James
F. had not yet mastered (Goals 3 and 4). See 2 AR 371; 4 AR 1532–36. The ARDC
increased James F.’s academic support for reading fluency and spelling, and
included accommodations specific to CVI, such as breaks for eye fatigue and the
use of blue-lined paper for writing. See 2 AR 373, 383. James F.’s mother disagreed
with 	the 	new 	IEP. 	She 	wanted 	the 	ARDC 	to 	follow 	Zauner-Undesser’s
recommendation that a TVI oversee the creation and implementation of James F.’s
IEP. The ARDC met in February 2022 to review Zauner-Undesser’s report and
compare it to CCISD’s FIE. See id. at 414–20. After spending significant time
meeting with teachers and other experts regarding Zauner-Undesser’s report, the
ARDC concluded that James F.’s CVI caused no negative impact in an educational
setting, and he did not require direct services from a TVI as Zauner-Undesser had
recommended. See id. at 427–29.
The 2021–2022 school year continued and Kirsten Clason, James F.’s
homeroom, 	math, 	social 	studies, 	and 	science 	teacher, 	reported 	that 	she
implemented James F.’s IEP accommodations in her class, but James F. would
consistently say he did not need such accommodations. See 5 AR 3748–54. James
F. performed at a high level in math, science, and social studies and scored very
well on standardized testing. See 2 AR 579; 4 AR 1517–20. Clason understood the
characteristics of James F.’s CVI and constantly monitored him, but James F. did
not display any CVI characteristics in her classroom. See 5 AR 3746–47, 3756–64.
By the end of the school year, James F. met or exceeded fourth grade expectations
in all his subjects, except for one grade-level standard in writing. See 2 AR 579.
James F. did not have any major behavior issues in Clason’s classes and received
almost all “Excellent” scores for his conduct during the 2021–2022 school year.
See id. Additionally, James F. performed well overall in his reading and writing
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 17

5
courses. James F. read with great fluency compared to other students with dyslexia
in his reading class. See 5 AR 3894. As documented in his report card, James F.
made overwhelming progress in reading and writing during the time that his IEP
was in effect. See 2 AR 579.
B. 	THE HEARING O FFICER ’S D ECISION
James F. brought an administrative due process complaint against CCISD.
A due process hearing took place in January 2023. The hearing officer focused on
(1) whether CCISD failed to provide James F. a free, appropriate public education
(“FAPE”) during the 2021–2022 school year and (2) whether CCISD appropriately
implemented James F.’s IEP. See 1 AR 2. The hearing officer noted that although
the ARDC “did not find [James F.] eligible based on a VI, CVI was included as an
OHI and the IEP included consult services by a TVI to support [James F.]’s
teachers to address his CVI.” See id. at 17. The hearing officer held that CCISD had
no obligation to accept Zauner-Undesser’s conclusions because CCISD reached a
decision based on its own assessment data and experience with James F., which
contradicted 	Zauner-Undesser’s 	findings. 	Specifically, 	the 	hearing 	officer
concluded 	that 	James 	F.’s 	IEP 	was, 	at 	all 	times, 	“appropriately
individualized . . . to meet his particular CVI-related needs.” Id. at 19. The hearing
officer concluded that James F.’s IEP “was administered in the least restrictive
environment and he was included [in the general education classroom] to the
maximum extent appropriate.” Id. at 21.
James F.’s parents participated in the ARDC and had the opportunity to
share their concerns and suggestions. The hearing officer found that the evidence
showed extensive collaboration among CCISD staff, teachers, doctors, specialists,
a TVI, and James F.’s parents. The hearing officer held that failure to agree with a
parent does not show a failure to collaborate, and James F. failed to show that
CCISD excluded his parents in bad faith. See id. at 23. Finally, the hearing officer
concluded that James F. meaningfully benefitted from his IEP as evidenced by his
many 	academic 	and 	non-academic 	achievements, 	including 	his 	success 	on
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 17

6
standardized testing, meeting all but one grade-level standard, mastering his IEP
goals, 	and 	his 	successful 	relationships 	with 	teachers 	and 	peers. 	See 	id. 	In
conclusion, the hearing officer held that CCISD provided James F. with a “FAPE
and his IEPs were reasonably calculated to address his needs in light of his unique
circumstances during the 2021–2022 school year.”2 Id. at 25.
James F. brought this lawsuit on June 6, 2023, appealing the decision of the
administrative hearing officer pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i). James F. argues that
the hearing officer erred in her conclusions.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under the IDEA, “[a]ny party aggrieved by the findings and decision” of an
administrative 	hearing 	officer 	may 	bring 	suit 	in 	district 	court. 	20 	U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(2)(A). 	The 	district 	court 	must 	then 	“receive 	the 	record 	of 	the
administrative proceedings” to review the hearing officer’s decision. Cypress-
Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 252 (5th Cir. 1997).
Although “due weight” is to be given, the hearing officer’s findings are not
conclusive. Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458
U.S. 176, 206 (1982). “The district court’s review of the [hearing officer]’s
determination is virtually de novo. That is, although the district court is to give due
weight to the hearing officer’s findings, the court must ultimately reach an
independent decision based on a preponderance of the evidence.” Lisa M. v.
Leander Indep. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). This
standard, however, “is ‘by no means an invitation to the courts to substitute their
own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which
2 As to the second issue that was before the hearing officer—whether CCISD appropriately
implemented James F.’s IEP—the hearing officer found that James F. had abandoned his
claim. See 1 AR 24 (“Petitioner did not present evidence that the District failed to
implement Student’s IEP during the relevant time period and appears to have abandoned
this claim by not addressing it in his Closing Brief.”). Because James F. likewise fails to
argue this claim in his briefing before this court, the claim is abandoned.
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 17

7
they review.’” R. S. v. Highland Park Indep. Sch. Dist., 951 F.3d. 319, 328 (5th Cir.
2020) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206).
My review “is not directed to discerning whether there are disputed issues
of fact, but rather, whether the administrative record, together with any additional
evidence, establishes that there has been compliance with IDEA’s processes and
that the child’s educational needs have been appropriately addressed.” E.R. v.
Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 909 F.3d 754, 762 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Seth
B. v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 810 F.3d 961, 966–67 (5th Cir. 2016)); see also C.G.
v. Waller Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:15-cv-00123, 2016 WL 3144161, at *4 (S.D. Tex.
June 6, 2016) (“[A] motion for summary judgement [sic] is simply a procedural
device for asking the Court to decide the case on the basis of the administrative
record.” (quotation omitted)).
As the party appealing the hearing officer’s decision, James F. carries the
burden of proof. See Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael Z, 580 F.3d 286, 292
n.4 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e hold that at the district court level, as at the
administrative level, the party challenging the IEP bears the burden of showing
that the IEP and the resulting placement are inappropriate under IDEA.”).
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION
In its reply brief, CCISD objects to James F.’s “attempt to introduce
additional evidence” in his response to CCISD’s motion. Dkt. 49 at 31. Specifically,
CCISD alleges that James F. attempts to introduce a manuscript, Emotion
Processing in Early Blind and Sighted Individuals, that is not found in the
administrative record. Although CCISD is correct that this manuscript is not found
in the administrative record, James F.’s reference to the manuscript has no effect
on my decision, so CCISD’s objection is denied as moot.
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 17

8
ANALYSIS
“To ensure that a child receives a FAPE, parents and school districts
collaborate to develop an [IEP] that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to
receive educational benefits.” R.H. v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 607 F.3d 1003, 1008
(5th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). The IEP must be specifically designed to meet
the unique needs of a particular child with a particular disability at no cost to the
parents. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29); see also Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist.
RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 391 (2017) (“The IEP is the means by which special education
and related services are tailored to the unique needs of a particular child.”
(quotation omitted)). An IEP “need not be the best possible one, nor one that will
maximize the child’s educational potential; rather, it need only be an education
that is specifically designed to meet the child’s unique needs, supported by services
that will permit him to benefit from the instruction.” Michael F., 118 F.3d at 247–
48 (quotation omitted). For an IEP to be tailored to a child’s unique needs, it must
be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of
the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 399. “[T]he question is whether
the IEP is reasonable, not whether the court regards it as ideal.” Id.
District courts use a four-factor test “derived from . . . the federal regulations
which implement the IDEA” to determine whether the IEP is reasonable. Michael
F., 	118 	F.3d 	at 	253 	n.29. 	These 	factors 	ask 	whether: 	“(1) the 	program 	is
individualized on the basis of the student’s assessment and performance; (2) the
program is administered in the least restrictive environment; (3) the services are
provided in a coordinated and collaborative manner by the key ‘stakeholders’; and
(4) positive academic and non-academic benefits are demonstrated.” Id. at 253. I
address each factor below.
A. 	CCISD PROVIDED JAMES F. AN I NDIVIDUALIZED IEP
The first factor asks whether the IEP is individualized based on the student’s
assessment and performance. See Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d
341, 347–48 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Michael F., 118 F.3d at 253). An IEP need not
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 17

9
provide “every special service necessary to maximize each . . . child’s potential.”
Rowley, 458 U.S. at 199. Rather, “[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make
progress.” Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 399.
James F. claims that CCISD “failed entirely to address [his] CVI and its
educational impacts.” Dkt. 1 at 4. CCISD assessed James F. in December 2020 and
found him to be a student with a specific learning disability and other health
impairments. CCISD had a duty to craft an IEP that would specifically address
James 	F.’s 	disabilities. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	found 	that 	CCISD 	created 	and
implemented 	an 	adequate 	IEP 	“sufficiently 	individualized 	on 	the 	basis 	of
assessment and performance” to meet James F.’s unique needs, including CVI and
dyslexia. 1 AR 16. I agree.
James F.’s primary argument is that “CCISD addressed certain aspects of
[his] 	circumstances,” 	but 	“left 	other 	aspects, 	such 	as 	his 	CVI, 	completely
unaddressed.” Dkt. 41 at 25. Specifically, “Coughlin’s evaluation in December
2020 . . . was woefully inadequate” because “Coughlin did not use a CVI Range
Assessment” or any other “formal academic assessment.” Id. at 26. In response,
CCISD agrees with the hearing officer that “there is no statutory or regulatory
requirement that any particular assessment protocol be used for an IDEA-
compliant evaluation of a potential VI.” 1 AR 18. Despite this, James F. argues that
his IEP is not individualized on the basis of his needs because Coughlin, the CCISD
evaluator, “failed to use [the CVI Range Assessment] properly.” Dkt. 44 at 15. Even
if that is true, James F. fails to prove that Coughlin’s evaluation was unreliable.
[T]he record before the Court shows a thorough assessment of [James
F.]. Although the Court declines to cite every portion of the record . . .
in this decision, the Court finds that Plaintiff[’s] challenges to the
decisions of [CCISD] in assessing [James F.] simply do not state a
violation of the IDEA. The administrative record and even Plaintiff[’s]
own factual allegations here are replete with evidence of the variety of
assessment tools and strategies used to evaluate [James F.]. . . . That
Plaintiff[] did not agree with the decisions made by the evaluation
team assessing [James F.] simply is not enough to sustain [his]
burden in showing [James F.] was not assessed in accordance with the
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 17

10
IDEA’s requirements. Thus, . . . the preponderance of evidence before
the Court supports the . . . conclusion that the FIE was a thorough,
valid assessment of all of [James F.’s] suspected disabilities.
Z.H. ex rel. R.H. v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:12-cv-775, 2015 WL 1384442,
at *10 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2015) (quotation omitted).
James F. argues that CCISD staff were uneducated in CVI and thus unable
to identify CVI characteristics or properly evaluate him. But James F. provides no
evidence to support these arguments beyond stating that “Coughlin had only
administered a CVI Range Assessment five times previously . . . and none of them
were of a child at Phase III of CVI.” Dkt. 41 at 11. The fact that CCISD’s evaluator
may have less experience than Zauner-Undesser does not prove that Coughlin’s
evaluation of James F. was inadequate. Further, merely presenting evidence of an
expert who uses different evaluation protocols and reaches a different decision
does not prove that CCISD’s evaluation is faulty. The IDEA does not require a
specific tool or evaluation protocol to assess James F. for CVI. James F. points to
nothing that requires this court to favor Zauner-Undesser’s conclusions over the
conclusions of CCISD’s experts.
Overall, James F. argues that he “does not merely challenge the [2020 FIE
re-]evaluation 	itself 	as 	an 	independent 	issue,” 	but 	“challenges 	[CCISD’s]
uninformed reliance on the FIE, despite the obvious flaws in it that were exposed
by the submission provided by [Zauner-Undesser].” Dkt. 50 at 3. Notably,
however, “Undesser’s report was not provided to the school district until a year
after the first IEP was created.” Dkt. 53 at 17–18. After receiving Zauner-
Undesser’s report, CCISD considered it along with the rest of James F.’s file and
found that no significant changes to James F.’s IEP were warranted based on her
conclusions. 	After 	reviewing 	CCISD’s 	evaluation 	and 	Zauner-Undesser’s
evaluation, I agree with the hearing officer that James F.’s arguments regarding
the adequacy of CCISD’s evaluation of him do “not overcome the preponderance
of the evidence indicating that his IEPs were appropriately individualized and
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 17

11
based on assessment and performance to meet his particular CVI-related needs.”
1 AR 19.
James F. does not argue that the accommodations found in his IEP are
insufficient but instead takes issue with CCISD’s conclusion that James F. is not
VI. James F.’s argument is misplaced. “Various courts throughout the nation have
. . . held that school districts are not required to classify a student into a particular
category, or affix that student with a particular label. Instead, the IDEA only
requires that the school district provide an appropriate education.” 	G.I. v.
Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:12-cv-385, 2013 WL 4523581, at *10 (E.D. Tex.
Aug. 23, 2013). Because James F.’s IEP included a statement of his present levels
of academic achievements and performance, contained measurable annual goals
designed to meet his needs, and allowed for numerous accommodations relating
to his disabilities and academic challenges, CCISD designed and implemented an
IEP that was appropriately individualized to address James F.’s unique needs
regarding his CVI diagnosis. As a result, this factor weighs in CCISD’s favor.
B. 	THE IEP CONSTITUTES THE L EAST R ESTRICTIVE E NVIRONMENT
The second factor requires first determining “whether education in the
regular classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, can be achieved
satisfactorily for a given child.” H.W. v. Comal Indep. Sch. Dist., 32 F.4th 454, 466
(5th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). “If the answer is no, and the school intends to
provide special education or to remove the child from regular education, [I] then
ask whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent
appropriate.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Mainstreaming refers to educating a
handicapped 	child 	in 	a 	regular 	education 	classroom 	with 	nonhandicapped
children.” Id. at 460 (cleaned up). “This preference [for mainstreaming] is only
overcome when education in a regular classroom cannot meet the handicapped
child’s unique needs.” Id. at 461 (quotation omitted).
To determine whether the IEP constitutes the least restrictive environment,
the Fifth Circuit considers four factors:
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 17

12
(1) whether 	the 	state 	has 	taken 	steps 	to 	accommodate 	the
handicapped child in regular education;
(2) whether the child will receive an educational benefit from regular
education;
(3) the child’s overall educational experience in the mainstreamed
environment, balancing the benefits of regular and special education
for each individual child; and
(4) what effect the handicapped child’s presence has on the regular
classroom environment and, thus, on the education that the other
students are receiving.
Id. at 466 (quotation omitted).
CCISD took many steps to accommodate James F. in the general classroom,
including giving him reading breaks, blue-lined paper, and assistance in reading
and writing with the help of an in-class support teacher. James F. certainly
received an educational benefit in his classroom as he participated in classroom
activities, was successful in his classroom job as a door greeter, enjoyed playing
with other students, engaged with his classmates, had positive relationships with
his teachers, and excelled academically in the general classroom. See 5 AR 3781–
82. Throughout James F.’s fourth-grade year, the ARDC repeatedly amended
James F.’s IEP to address his parent’s concerns and provide new goals as James F.
achieved the goals originally set in his IEP. See 2 AR 414–26, 430–61.
James F. received good scores for classroom conduct, suggesting that he
adequately interacted with his peers and performed well among non-disabled
children. James F. spent time with Smalligan outside of the general education
classroom, but such time was properly limited to avoid James F. being pulled out
of the general classroom unnecessarily. Throughout his fourth-grade year, James
F. was removed from the general classroom for special education for varying times
not to exceed 140 minutes per week depending on the IEP in place. Overall, CCISD
kept James F. in general education while increasing special education support and
in-class accommodations, and thus “mainstreamed [James F.] to the maximum
extent appropriate.” H.W., 32 F.4th at 471.
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 17

13
James F. argues that CCISD failed to instruct him in self-advocacy and failed
to explain his accommodations to him, such that he faced stigmatization when
removed from the general classroom. See Dkt. 41 at 30. The hearing officer found
that James F. “did not specifically challenge the restrictiveness of [his] educational
placement.” 1 AR 20. Further, James F. “did not present evidence that the potential
stigmatization of removal from the general education setting outweighed the
benefits provided” to him, and held that “[t]he presence or absence of instruction
related to self-advocacy is not an LRE issue.” Id. at 21. I agree; it is clear that James
F.’s IEP constitutes the least restrictive environment.
This Michael F. factor focuses on whether James F. “could be satisfactorily
educated in the regular classroom with supplemental aids and services,” H.W., 32
F.4th 	at 	466, 	not 	whether 	James 	F. 	understands 	the 	purposes 	of 	his
accommodations or feels that he “appear[s] different” than his peers. Dkt. 41 at 30.
James F. often preferred to work individually in the classroom and sometimes
denied the need for his accommodations, but his teachers did not observe these
actions as a sign that he was struggling. Rather, James F. succeeded academically
and thrived in the general classroom environment. The Fifth Circuit agrees that
“an IEP cannot be held inadequate merely because it does not address all of the
specific weaknesses a child might have by virtue of that child’s disability.” H.W.,
32 F.4th at 468 (quotation omitted). Rather, this factor only requires that I
determine whether James F.’s educational environment is suitable for him.
Because James F. could “grasp the essential elements of the regular education
curriculum,” Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1049 (5th Cir. 1989),
and James F. has not put forth sufficient evidence that his potential lack of self-
advocacy caused him to struggle in the general classroom, this factor weighs in
favor of CCISD.
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 17

14
C. 	CCISD PROVIDED S ERVICES IN A COORDINATED AND COLLABORATIVE
MANNER
The third factor considers whether the key stakeholders provided the
services in a coordinated and collaborative manner. See Michael F., 118 F.3d at
253. “The IDEA contemplates a collaborative process between the district and the
parents.” E.R. v. Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:16-cv-0058, 2017 WL
3017282, at *27 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017). The child’s parents do not, however,
possess “veto power” over a school district’s decisions, and therefore lack the right
to dictate an outcome. White v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373, 380 (5th
Cir. 2003). Absent bad faith exclusion of a student’s parents or refusal to listen to
them or consider their input, a school district must be deemed to have met the
IDEA’s requirements regarding collaboration with a student’s parents. See id.
James F. argues that CCISD wrongfully failed to adopt and implement the
conclusions and recommendations of his private expert, Zauner-Undesser. Despite
Zauner-Undesser’s expertise, CCISD is not required to follow the advice or accept
the requests of a parent’s expert because “there is no presumption in favor of
outside evaluators over teachers or other school personnel.” Lisa M., 924 F.3d at
216 	(quotation 	omitted). 	Rather, 	the 	record 	evinces 	CCISD’s 	continued
collaboration with James F.’s parents at every stage of the process. CCISD
coordinated with James F.’s parents and their attorney, and met with them several
times from December of 2020 through the spring of 2022 to discuss James F.’s
disabilities 	and 	accommodations. 	James 	F.’s 	parents 	attended 	every 	ARDC
meeting and had, on several occasions, initially agreed with the resulting IEPs.
The ARDC met on December 16, 2020, to develop an IEP for James F. based
on his December 2020 FIE and his medical reports. The ARDC included CCISD
staff, James F.’s teachers, doctors, specialists, and James F.’s parents. See 2 AR
483. Dr. Moore, the eye doctor who diagnosed James F. with CVI, participated in
the ARDC meeting via telephone to provide additional information on James F.’s
visual system, and suggested he be allowed to take a “10–20 second break” when
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 14 of 17

15
needed to “reset,” which CCISD implemented into his IEP. Id. at 480. Additionally,
CCISD accepted James F.’s parent’s request to consider Zauner-Undesser’s report.
The ARDC met and reviewed the report on February 17, 2022. See id. at 414.
Regardless of the resulting IEP, CCISD obviously collaborated with the necessary
parties regarding James F.’s disabilities and accommodations.
Although James F.’s parents believe he should have been labeled as a student
who is VI and has a specific learning disability in written expression, James F. has
failed to present any evidence of bad faith exclusion of his parents by CCISD. See
White, 343 F.3d at 380 (“Absent any evidence of bad faith exclusion of the parents
or refusal to listen to or consider the [parents]’ input, [defendant] met IDEA
requirements with respect to parental input.”); Blackmon v. Springfield R–XII
Sch. Dist., 198 F.3d 648, 656 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Procedural deficiencies in the
development of a child’s IEP warrant rejecting the IEP only if they compromised
the pupil’s right to an appropriate education, seriously hampered the parent’s
opportunity to participate in the formulation process, or caused a deprivation of
educational benefits.” (quotation omitted)). Thus, CCISD has satisfied the IDEA’s
requirements regarding collaboration with James F.’s parents.
D. 	THE IEP M EANINGFULLY BENEFITED JAMES F.
The fourth factor considers whether there have been demonstrable academic
and non-academic benefits resulting from the IEP. See Michael F., 118 F.3d at 253.
The IDEA does not entitle a disabled child to an IEP that maximizes his educational
performance, but instead “guarantees a basic floor of opportunity, specifically
designed to meet the child’s unique needs, supported by services that will permit
him to benefit from the instruction.” Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael Z.,
580 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). “[T]he educational benefit
that an IEP is designed to achieve must be meaningful.” Michael F., 118 F.3d at
248 (quotation omitted). Specifically, a child in a regular classroom generally
requires “an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks
and advance from grade to grade.” Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 394 (quotation omitted).
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 15 of 17

16
The hearing officer found that James F. obtained sufficient non-academic
and academic benefits from his IEP. See 1 AR 24. James F. argues, unsuccessfully,
that his CVI “is so pervasive in its impact that it necessarily affect[s] all areas of
[his] education” and that his “overall academic record is affected by the nature of
the case.” Dkt. 44 at 15–16. James F. has not provided any evidence to support this
claim. On the contrary, the evidence shows that James F.’s overall academic record
is nearly stellar with no clear signs of any negative impact from his CVI.
The Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit “favor an overall academic record-
based review.” H.W., 32 F.4th at 468. I “must look to [James F.’s] overall academic
success, not whether [his] disability has been remedied.” Id. at 469. James F.
continued to meet and surpass his IEP goals, advanced exceptionally in his subjects
and standardized testing, and was admitted into the Gifted and Talented program
because of his academic merit. See 2 AR 583–87, 604–12. In total, it is evident
from the record that James F. consistently made progress toward his IEP goals and
made 	overall 	academic 	advancement 	as 	suggested 	by 	his 	classroom
accomplishments and “accelerated” progress on his standardized testing scores.
Id. at 583, 585.
Regardless of any remaining educational challenges, James F. has failed to
carry his burden to show that he did not receive academic or non-academic
benefits from his IEP. CCISD need not entirely remediate James F.’s CVI to provide
him a FAPE. Because James F.’s IEP adequately enabled him “to achieve passing
marks and advance from grade to grade,” his IEP was “reasonably calculated to
enable [him] to receive educational benefits.” 	Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 394
(quotation omitted).
* * *
Considering the four factors holistically, I find that CCISD developed and
implemented a special education program for James F. that was reasonably
calculated to provide him with education benefits based on his unique needs.
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 16 of 17

17
James F. has failed to offer a preponderance of evidence that CCISD denied him a
FAPE during the 2021–2022 school year.
CONCLUSION
Because I find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the hearing
officer’s decision, I grant CCISD’s motion for judgment (Dkt. 39) and deny James
F.’s motion (Dkt. 41). A final judgment will issue separately.
SIGNED this 	day of March 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:23-cv-02063 Document 55 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 17 of 17