• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

U.S. District Court for W. District on NY Orders School District to Pay Child's Tuition

Posted on: Friday, 17 February 2006, 21:00 CST

By Helen Nguyen

A school district must pay the private school tuition of a student who is dyslexic, ruled the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in City School District of the City of Buffalo v. Darlene S. and Timothy S., as parents and guardians of M.S., an infant.

In granting injunctive relief to the student's parents, Judge John T. Elfvin found that the school district was obligated to pay the tuition based on findings by an impartial hearing officer and a New York State review officer that the private school was an appropriate placement for the student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Case Background

The case concerned a child, named M.S., who is dyslexic and a student of the City of Buffalo School District.

Because of his dyslexia, M.S. has an individualized education program (IEP) as required by IDEA. In his most recent IEP in October 2003, the school district assigned him to a public school in the district.

M.S.'s parents disagreed with the public school placement. Specifically, during the eighth grade, M.S. began having behavioral problems which included non-compliance and insubordination to teachers, engaging in rude and offensive behavior, and attendance and tardiness problems.

M.S. is currently 16 years old and in the ninth grade. Instead of attending a public school, M.S.'s parents believed that M.S. would receive a more appropriate education at an all-male, private, nonsectarian college preparatory school that offered intensive language remediation of boys with dyslexia and other language-based learning disabilities.

M.S. has been attending the private school since the beginning of the 2004 - 2005 school year.

M.S.'s parents sought reimbursement from the school district for the tuition of the private school.

Prior Rulings, Motions

In January 2005, hearings were conducted by an impartial hearing officer who ruled that the private school was an appropriate placement for M.S. and that M.S.'s parents were entitled to be reimbursed by the school district for the tuition.

The school district appealed the decision but a state review officer of the New York State Education Dept. also held that M.S.'s parents should be reimbursed.

In August 2005, the school district filed the instant action in district court, in which it sought to annul and vacate the decision by the state review officer. It also sought a determination that M.S.'s parents failed to show equitable entitlement to receive reimbursement.

In response, M.S.'s parents filed an answer to the school district's action and later moved to file an amended answer for injunctive relief. The court granted their motion to add a counterclaim for injunctive relief to their answer.

Court's Discussion

IDEA, Injunctive Relief

Under IDEA, federal funds are provided to states that demonstrate that they have developed plans to assure that all children with disabilities residing in the state have a free appropriate public education, 20 USC Section 1412(a)(1)(A).

To meet the requirements under IDEA, a school district must provide each child who has a disability with special education and related services that will reasonably enable the child to receive educational benefits, 20 USC Section 1401(8).

The school district argued that it should not have to reimburse M.S.'s parents since they changed their son's placement without obtaining approval and did it at their own financial risk.

The court disagreed, finding the school district was obligated to reimburse M.S.'s parents based on the determinations by the impartial hearing officer and state review officer that the private school was an appropriate placement under IDEA for M.S.

For example, in Bd. of Educ. of the Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Schutz, 290 F3d 476, 485 (Second Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a final administrative decision by a state review board, agreeing with a parent's decision about their child's placement, constitutes a 'placement' within the meaning of the pendent placement provision of the IDEA [20 USC Section 1415(j)].

Applying this standard to M.S., Judge Elfvin wrote: Here, the impartial hearing officer and the state review officer found in favor of [M.S.'s parents] that [the private school] was the correct placement for M.S. This constitutes an agreement between [M.S.'s parents] and the district and makes [the private school] the current educational placement, see Schutz at 484-485.

Court's Ruling

The court granted the motion by M.S.'s parents for injunctive relief and ordered the City of Buffalo School District to reimburse them for M.S.'s tuition.

Source: Daily Record (Rochester, NY)

More News in this Category