Opinion ID: 4535004
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Difference in educational costs

Text: Dramatically different costs may be presented when parents unilaterally choose to enroll their child in a new school. Indeed, the cost of providing pendency services in the new school may be substantially higher than the cost of providing those services at the previous school. 69 Nothing in the statutory text or legislative history 67See ante, note 49. This did not happen here only because the District Court in Navarro Carrillo granted the City’s motion to stay the order granting the application for a preliminary injunction. 68 Cf. T.M., 752 F.3d at 172 (authorizing limited reimbursement to parents in light of, among other things, the fact that the school district refused to provide the child pendency services in the first instance); Mackey, 386 F.3d at 165–66 (authorizing reimbursement for pendency services even after parents lost their IEP dispute for the relevant school year). 69 In these cases, neither the City nor the Parents presented any evidence in the record about the cost of iBRAIN’s services and how they compare to the cost of similar services at iHOPE. At oral argument, however, counsel for the City informed us, without contradiction, that the cost of attending iBRAIN was significantly higher, and that the Parents had disavowed the City’s transportation arrangement at iHOPE in favor of a private transportation service arranged by iBRAIN. 34 of the IDEA, however, “implies a legislative intent to permit” the parents of children with disabilities “to utilize the [stay-put provision’s] automatic injunctive procedure . . . to frustrate the fiscal policies of participating states.” 70