Source: http://blog.gapattorneys.com/tag/tuition-reimbursement
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:57:41+00:00

Document:
G.B. and L.B. ex rel. N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 60 IDELR 2 (2d Cir. 2012)—the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision that a school district denied FAPE to a student with pervasive developmental disorder by offering an overly restrictive placement. Thus, the Federal Court upheld the parent’s entitlement to tuition reimbursement for the child’s private inclusion preschool program. The school district should have considered whether the child could participate in an inclusion classroom with the help of a 1:1 aide. NOTE: this decision has not been released for publication in official or permanent law reports, per court order. To view the blog posting regarding the lower court case, see N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 55 IDELR 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), posted on April 28, 2011.
Doe by Doe v. East Lyme Bd. Of Educ., 59 IDELR 249 (D. Conn. 2012)—A U.S. District court reversed the lower court’s Recommended Ruling and held that school district denied FAPE to a student with autism when it failed to develop an IEP for the 2010-2011 school year. Although the parent had previously declined the proposed IEP for the previous year, that did not extinguish the district’s obligation to review the student’s IEP at least annually. The parent had unilaterally placed the student in a private religious school, which the court held was inappropriate to meet the student’s educational needs because it provided no special education services nor did it implement the IEP as the teachers were not certified in special education. The court deferred to the hearing officer’s determination regarding inappropriateness of the private placement and determined that the parent’s were not entitled to tuition reimbursement.
T.M. and J.M., on behalf of T.D.M., v. Kingston City School Dist., 59 IDELR 254 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)—The parents of an eighteen year old with pervasive developmental disorder notified the district of their intent to place the student in a private out-of-state facility in April or May of 2008 and signed a two year contract. The court held that the district’s obligation to provide FAPE ended in June 2008 when the student earned a Regents Diploma. Yet, the parent had repeatedly refused to provide a copy of his transcript to the district. The district did not obtain a copy of the student’s transcript until March of 2010 at which time it was determined that he had had enough credits to receive a Regents high school diploma in June of 2008. If the parent had provided the transcript in June 2008 when it was requested by the district, it would have been clear that the student had earned a Regents diploma and that the district was no longer obligated to provide FAPE. Accordingly, equitable considerations did not warrant tuition reimbursement to the parent.
Nalu Y. v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii, 58 IDELR 154 (D. Haw. 2012): The Court remanded the case to the hearing officer to consider whether the school district denied FAPE to the student, classified as speech impaired and other health impaired, by failing to investigate the parent’s concerns regarding the student’s fear of attending the recommended school. The hearing officer dismissed the parent’s argument that the student’s fear of the public school made the placement inappropriate. Although the Court noted that a court should typically defer to an administrative agency’s factual findings, the hearing officer’s decision in this case was neither thorough, nor careful since he ignored critical testimony regarding the student’s fear. After affirming the hearing officer’s decision in all other respects, the Court remanded the matter to the hearing officer for consideration of this issue and whether the parent’s were entitled to private school tuition reimbursement.
In re Student with a Disability, 58 IDELR 118 (SEA NY 2011): The New York State Review Officer (SRO) overturned the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) who had awarded private school tuition reimbursement to the parent of an autistic student in part because the IHO determined that the methodology that would have been utilized in the recommended placement – Treatment and Education of Autistic and other Communication Handicapped Children (TEACCH) – would not have appropriately met the student’s needs. The parent had unilaterally placed the student in a private school that utilized Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). The SRO noted that although the method that would have been utilized by the school district was not specified in the student’s IEP, such method generally does not have to be specified in an IEP since it is usually a matter to be left to the teacher. The parent was concerned that the TEACCH approach relied on students having the ability to maintain a level of independence, and the student did not have such ability. However, the SRO disagreed with the IHO and found support in the record that the TEACCH approach would have appropriately met the student’s needs.
S.F. and Y.D. v. New York City Department of Education, 57 IDELR 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2011): The parents of a thirteen-year-old student with a learning disability were denied private school tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement despite the fact that the school district’s recommended placement included students with academic achievement levels ranging from a third-grade level to a seventh-grade level. The parents had argued that the gap in academic achievement levels violated New York State law. The Court noted that although under New York state law there is a maximum three-year range that applies to the chronological age of students, there is no maximum range for levels of academic achievement. The Court also determined that the inclusion of one student with an emotional disturbance and one student classified as other health impaired, did not make the proposed placement inappropriate. The requirement to place students with students of similar needs does not necessarily prohibit placing students of varying disabilities in the same classroom.
In addition, the Court concluded that the school district did not procedurally violate the IDEA by not allowing the student’s parent to visit the recommended placement. Nor did the school district commit a procedural violation when they included a regular education teacher at the student’s IEP team meeting who had not taught regular education for nearly twenty years.
C.F. v. New York City Department of Education, 57 IDELR 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2011): The Court concluded that although New York regulations require a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) be conducted in order to determine why a student displays behaviors that interfere with his learning or that of others, the school district’s development of a behavior intervention plan (BIP) without conducting an FBA did not deprive an autistic student a FAPE. The Court reasoned that the BIP was based on current observations from his teachers and up-to-date records of his recommended placement. Moreover, although the Court concluded that the school district failed to specify parent counseling and training in the student’s IEP (a service required to be offered to students classified as autistic under New York state regulations), such a procedural defect did not amount to a denial of FAPE. Having determined that the school district’s proposed placement offered the student a FAPE, the parent’s claim for private school tuition reimbursement was rejected.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.