Opinion ID: 714807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Daniel Drinker's then current educational placement

Text: 33 As the Drinkers note, there is no question that Gladwyne was the current placement of Daniel Drinker at the time Colonial issued the NORA to them in July 1993. Br. at 11. The IEP team, consistent with the requirements of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5), and Pennsylvania Regulations, 22 Pa.Code §§ 14.42(b), (c), and 14.32, had determined the appropriate placement and location of services for Daniel to be Gladwyne Elementary in October 1992. In the fall of 1993, there was no other valid IEP in place. Thus, there was no other current educational placement at that time. As the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has stated: 34 Because the term connotes preservation of the status quo, it refers to the operative placement actually functioning at the time the dispute first arises. If an IEP has been implemented, then that program's placement will be the one subject to the stayput provision. And where ... the dispute arises before any IEP has been implemented, the 'current educational placement' will be the operative placement under which the child is actually receiving instruction at the time the dispute arises. 35 Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ., 918 F.2d 618, 625-26 (6th Cir.1990). 36 The standard in our cases has been the same. As we noted in Woods, the dispositive factor in deciding a child's 'current educational placement' should be the Individualized Education Program (IEP) ... actually functioning when the 'stay put' is invoked. Id., 20 Indiv.Disabilities Educ.L.Rep. (LRP Publications) at 440. 37 As the operative placement actually functioning at the time the dispute between the Drinkers and Colonial arose (the IEP actually functioning when the stay put provision of the IDEA was invoked) was Daniel's placement at Gladwyne Elementary, the district court was correct in its decision that Colonial must bear the burden of paying for the costs of Daniel's education at Gladwyne through the date of the district court's final order. See School Comm. v. Department of Educ., 471 U.S. at 372-74, 105 S.Ct. at 2004-05.