Group PresentationGroup PresentationEDSPE 504EDSPE 504

Samia AhmedSamia Ahmed

Ashley BergerAshley Berger

Lindsey ClodfelterLindsey Clodfelter

Mariam El-KalayMariam El-Kalay

Lorenzo JarinLorenzo Jarin

Emily JohnsonEmily Johnson

A quick overview of the A quick overview of the case…case…

This case is between Frank and Diane This case is between Frank and Diane G., the parents of a child with a G., the parents of a child with a disability, and they Hyde Park School disability, and they Hyde Park School District in NYDistrict in NY

The parents sued the school district after The parents sued the school district after it failed to offer their child a FAPE as it failed to offer their child a FAPE as defined under IDEAdefined under IDEA

In the end, the court ordered the school In the end, the court ordered the school district to reimburse the parents for district to reimburse the parents for tuition and attorney fees.tuition and attorney fees.

Title and CitationTitle and Citation

Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006)356 (2d Cir. 2006)

Level or Type of Court:Level or Type of Court:U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second

CircuitCircuit

Name of Reporter(Federal Reporter 3rd Series)

Volume Number

Page NumberCourt and

Year of Decision

Name of Case

FactsFactsIn 4In 4thth grade Anthony was classified as learning grade Anthony was classified as learning disabled by his school district and found eligible for disabled by his school district and found eligible for special education services under IDEA and state lawsspecial education services under IDEA and state lawsPrior to the classification, Anthony attended private Prior to the classification, Anthony attended private schools and continued to attend private schools schools and continued to attend private schools afterward. afterward. Anthony received an independent evaluation, which Anthony received an independent evaluation, which recommended that Anthony be placed in a small recommended that Anthony be placed in a small classroom of 12 students with a classroom aide.classroom of 12 students with a classroom aide.The district developed an IEP for Anthony and The district developed an IEP for Anthony and placed him in a general education fourth grade class placed him in a general education fourth grade class with an individual aide at a public school within the with an individual aide at a public school within the district.district.Anthony’s mother requested an impartial hearing to Anthony’s mother requested an impartial hearing to discuss Anthony’s placement.. discuss Anthony’s placement..

Facts continued…Facts continued… During the hearing process Anthony’s parents During the hearing process Anthony’s parents

enrolled him at Upton Lake Christian School in a enrolled him at Upton Lake Christian School in a class with 14 studentsclass with 14 students

Both parties appealed to the State Review Officer Both parties appealed to the State Review Officer (SRO), who affirmed the finding of the IHO.(SRO), who affirmed the finding of the IHO.

The Impartial Hearing Office (IHO) found Upton Lake The Impartial Hearing Office (IHO) found Upton Lake to be an inappropriate placement for Anthony to be an inappropriate placement for Anthony because he was making no progress socially or because he was making no progress socially or academically. IHO ruled that the school district was academically. IHO ruled that the school district was not responsible for Anthony’s tuition costs at Upton not responsible for Anthony’s tuition costs at Upton Lake, but that the school district was responsible for Lake, but that the school district was responsible for providing Anthony a consultant teacher, individual providing Anthony a consultant teacher, individual aide and related services at Upton Lake. aide and related services at Upton Lake. 

IssuesIssues

Does the Individuals with Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permit Disabilities Education Act permit

a parent to receive a parent to receive reimbursement for a disabled reimbursement for a disabled child’s private school tuition if child’s private school tuition if

the child has not previously the child has not previously received special education received special education

services from a public agency?services from a public agency?

HoldingHolding Affirmed. Affirmed. The Second Circuit determined that the IDEA does The Second Circuit determined that the IDEA does

not set forth a threshold requirement that a not set forth a threshold requirement that a disabled child must have previously received disabled child must have previously received special education in the public school system to special education in the public school system to be eligible for tuition reimbursement at private be eligible for tuition reimbursement at private school.school.

The court explained that to hold otherwise would The court explained that to hold otherwise would lead to the “unreasonable” requirement that lead to the “unreasonable” requirement that parents keep their child in a public school special parents keep their child in a public school special education program until it was “clear that their education program until it was “clear that their ‘speculation’ was borne out by a wasted year of ‘speculation’ was borne out by a wasted year of actual failure.” actual failure.”

According to the court, the IDEA does not require According to the court, the IDEA does not require parents to “jeopardize their child’s health and parents to “jeopardize their child’s health and education in this matter in order to qualify for … education in this matter in order to qualify for … reimbursement.”reimbursement.”

Legal DoctrineLegal Doctrine

One major purpose of IDEA is to provide One major purpose of IDEA is to provide FAPEFAPE

FAPE is defined as special ed. and related FAPE is defined as special ed. and related services designed to meet a student’s specific services designed to meet a student’s specific needs. The education must also be needs. The education must also be reasonably calculated to provide educational reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. This was laid out in Bd. of Educ. v. benefit. This was laid out in Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley. If the state fails to provide a FAPE, Rowley. If the state fails to provide a FAPE, then parents may place their child in a then parents may place their child in a private school and, in certain circumstances, private school and, in certain circumstances, receive reimbursement for tuition. receive reimbursement for tuition.

Legal Doctrine Legal Doctrine continued…continued…

Were Anthony’s parents eligible for reimbursement? Were Anthony’s parents eligible for reimbursement?

TWO-PRONGED TEST (established under TWO-PRONGED TEST (established under Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370):Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370):

Was the IEP proposed by the school district Was the IEP proposed by the school district inappropriate?inappropriate?

The School District conceded that it was inappropriate.The School District conceded that it was inappropriate.

Was the private placement appropriate to the child’s Was the private placement appropriate to the child’s needs?needs?

The school district argued that it was not, but the court The school district argued that it was not, but the court holds that even though his education there did not holds that even though his education there did not follow the state standards for public education it was follow the state standards for public education it was nevertheless appropriate because: nevertheless appropriate because:

Legal Doctrine Legal Doctrine Continued…Continued………

a) It was designed based on his specific needs a) It was designed based on his specific needs (i.e., he had a smaller class size and also (i.e., he had a smaller class size and also received individualized instruction and received individualized instruction and modifications). modifications).

b) He made academic and social progress.b) He made academic and social progress. The School District also argued that they The School District also argued that they

had an “absolute legal defense”:had an “absolute legal defense”: Interpreted one of the 1997 amendments to the Interpreted one of the 1997 amendments to the

IDEA (20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C)(ii)) to imply IDEA (20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C)(ii)) to imply that parents may ONLY receive reimbursement that parents may ONLY receive reimbursement

for tuition if their child was PREVIOUSLY for tuition if their child was PREVIOUSLY receiving special education from a public receiving special education from a public

institution before they moved him or her to a institution before they moved him or her to a private institutionprivate institution. .

Legal Doctrine Legal Doctrine Continued…Continued…

After analyzing the language and using the After analyzing the language and using the “traditional canons of statutory construction”, “traditional canons of statutory construction”, the court determined that this was NOT the the court determined that this was NOT the intended message of the law because: intended message of the law because: The amendment is ambiguous and therefore must be The amendment is ambiguous and therefore must be

interpreted with the larger intent of IDEA in mind interpreted with the larger intent of IDEA in mind (to provide FAPE to all students with special needs) (to provide FAPE to all students with special needs)

The court does not see this amendment as The court does not see this amendment as restricting reimbursement to only parents whose restricting reimbursement to only parents whose children had previously received public special children had previously received public special education. They read the word “previously” as in education. They read the word “previously” as in reference to IDEA’s previous requirements (prior to reference to IDEA’s previous requirements (prior to the 1997 amendment).the 1997 amendment).

Legal Doctrine Legal Doctrine continued….continued….

Therefore, the court holds that the Therefore, the court holds that the appropriateness of appropriateness of

reimbursement must be decided reimbursement must be decided on a case-by-case basis, using the on a case-by-case basis, using the rationale of the two-pronged test. rationale of the two-pronged test.

SignificanceSignificance

This case establishes that families This case establishes that families are subject to reimbursement of are subject to reimbursement of tuition costs if placed at a private tuition costs if placed at a private school  school  

Two pronged test established:Two pronged test established:1.1. Was the IEP proposed by the school Was the IEP proposed by the school

district inappropriatedistrict inappropriate

2.2. Was the private placement appropriate Was the private placement appropriate to the child’s needsto the child’s needs

Significance Continued…Significance Continued… Parents bear the burden of proving the Parents bear the burden of proving the

private placement was appropriateprivate placement was appropriate Parents should provide notice to the school Parents should provide notice to the school

district that they are rejecting the placement district that they are rejecting the placement offered and are placing their child in a offered and are placing their child in a private school at public expenseprivate school at public expense

The private placement does not need to meet The private placement does not need to meet the FAPE standards it just needs to be the FAPE standards it just needs to be appropriate in order for the family to receive appropriate in order for the family to receive reimbursement.reimbursement.

Child is not required to have received special Child is not required to have received special services prior to private school placement services prior to private school placement