Posted on August 20, 2010
A.H. ex rel. J.H. v. Dep’t of Educ., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17173 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 16, 2010)
Court: Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Nature of Case: Tuition reimbursement for unilaterally placed student
Nature of Disability: Unspecified
Issue: Whether absence of student’s special education teacher at IEP meeting rendered IEP procedurally deficient where IEP meeting was attended by another special education teacher who had knowledge of the school district’s services and programs
Holding: Court of appeals reversed the district court and ruled in favor of the school district
J.D.P. v. Cherokee County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84687 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2010)
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Nature of case: Restraint and seclusion
Nature of Disability: autism, mental retardation, a speech/language disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).
Issue: Whether school district’s alleged failure to adequately train staff resulted in unreasonable restraint and seclusion in violation of Section 504 and the mericans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Holding: In favor of school district.
T.G. v. Baldwin Park Unified Sch. Dist., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82745 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010)
Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Nature of Case: Appropriateness of school district’s educational placement
Nature of Disability: autism, moderate mental retardation, and language impairment.
Issue: Whether school district’s center-based placement for student with autism provided appropriate education in least restrictive environment, where parent requested continued home-bound placement.
Holding: District court affirmed hearing officer’s decision that school district’s placement was appropriate.
By: Jack D. Robinson
Posted on August 6, 2010
The Denver Public Schools (DPS) was recently the recipient of great news on multiple fronts. I just received the following (slightly edited) email from Superintendent Boasberg about a multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Education:
Denver Public Schools was chosen to receive an Investing in Innovation, or i3, grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Education in the amount of up to $25 million. A total of 1,698 entries were submitted for the $650 million in federal grants available, and 49 winners have been named. DPS was the only school district in the nation chosen to receive one of the top two award categories. Along with DPS’ receipt of $10 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for improving educator effectiveness and $8 million from the Federal Government for expanding its innovative teacher residency program, this is the third major national competition DPS has been fortunate to win in the last year. Together these three national awards are bringing $50 million into the district.
This innovation grant will enable [DPS] to significantly improve the reading and literacy skills of [its] middle school students, which is critical to preparing them for high school and ensuring they are on track to graduate. It will help [DPS] close the achievement gap and meet the educational needs of [its] English language learners.
The grant will fund a program called Collaborative Strategic Reading Colorado (CSR-CO). The mission of CSR-CO is to improve literacy and bi-literacy instruction and achievement in schools with high numbers of ELL students. About 5,200 Denver students will be directly impacted by the project in eight DPS middle schools. These schools will implement strategies used successfully in linguistically diverse classrooms across subject areas to address the linguistic and academic needs of English-language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities at the middle school level. Martin Luther King Jr., Early College and Merrill Middle School will be the first two schools to implement CSR-CO.
The Investing in Innovation grant is part of the $5 billion investment in school reform in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The final amount DPS will receive is contingent on the district securing a 20 percent private-sector match by September 8.
DPS also received great news about its increased high school graduation rate which reflects incredible improvement in DPS’s programming:
Preliminary estimates show a graduating class of 3,250 students in the Class of 2010, which is a 12.4% jump over the previous year—an increase of 350 graduates. Both Bruce Randolph and Martin Luther King Jr., Early College graduated their first classes in 2010, and South, East, Lincoln and George Washington high schools in particular have seen significant increases. Abraham Lincoln High School in Southwest Denver has more than tripled the size of its graduating class since 2004. George Washington’s graduating class has increased by 19% over that time; East’s grew by about 18%, and South’s by about 11%.
DPS has nearly doubled the number of high school students who are taking Advanced Placement courses and concurrently enrolling in college courses while still in high school. This is critical both to increasing graduation rates and college readiness. DPS states that the Denver Scholarship Foundation should also be credited with making this possible. The Denver Scholarship Foundation has awarded 1,658 scholarships to DPS students totaling $5.2 million. In 2010, Denver Scholarship Foundation Future Centers helped students identify over $24.5 million in outside scholarships.
In the midst of the news gloom, it is refreshing and encouraging to receive such bright and hopeful news.
Congratulations are due to Denver Public Schools.
By Jack D. Robinson
Posted on August 2, 2010
Ferren C. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14302 (3d Cir. 2010)
Court: Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Nature of Case: Compensatory education
Nature of Disability: Autism
Issue: Whether the equitable relief principles under the IDEA allowed the district court to order a school district to develop IEPs and act as the local education agency (LEA) for a 24 year-old girl with autism who was granted three years of compensatory education at a private school.
Holding: The court of appeals held that the award of equitable relief was appropriate under the IDEA because, although the student no longer had a statutory right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), she was eligible for compensatory education which could only be fulfilled if the school district was required to provided her a FAPE.
M.F. v. Irvington Union Free Sch. Dist., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68788 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2010)
Court: United States Dist. Ct. for the Southern Dist. of New York
Nature of Case: Private school tuition reimbursement of privately placed student.
Nature of Disability: Unspecified
Issue: Whether the IEP in dispute was procedurally and substantively appropriate.
Holding: For the school district. IHO ordered 1/2 tuition reimbursement. ALJ reversed IHO finding IEP provided FAPE in LRE. Court affirmed ALJ.
M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45400 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2010)
Court: United States Dist. Ct. for the Southern Dist. of New York
Nature of Case: Private school tuition reimbursement of privately placed student.
Nature of Disability: Autism
Issue: Whether the school district placement was reasonably calculated to provide the student with a FAPE in the LRE.
Holding: For the parents. IHO found for the parents and ordered tuition reimbursement, The ALJ reversed and found for the school district. The district court reversed and found for the parents, ordering full tuition reimbursement.
By: Jack D. Robinson
Posted on July 9, 2010
District of Columbia v. Doe, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13697 (D.C. Cir. July 6, 2010)
Court: United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia
Nature of Case: Authority of impartial hearing officer (IHO) to modify discipline of disabled student
Nature of Disability: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Issue: Whether the IDEA hearing officer exceeded his authority by modifying the terms of student’s class exclusion, and whether the case was moot because student no longer attended a district school.
Holding: Court reversed the district court and held that even if it was found that behavior was not a manifestation of student’s disability and student should be treated as regular education student. IHO had authority to modify discipline to ensure student received a FAPE. Case was not moot because issue could recur.
Doe v. Marlborough Pub. Schs, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66482 (D. Mass. June 30, 2010)
Court: United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Massachusetts
Nature of Case: Tuition reimbursement for Unilateral private school placement and discontinuance of services based on graduation
Nature of Disability: Chromosomal disorder resulting in significant language-based learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and difficulties with executive functioning, auditory processing, social and emotional functioning, and behavior.
Issue: Whether school district was required to pay for unilateral private school placement based on improper discontinuance of services following graduation.
Holding: The district court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision and held that: (1) the school district properly graduated the Student because he validly passed the MCAS exam and his senior year IEP was reasonably calculated to provide him with educational benefit; (2) the stay-put provision was properly applied; and (3) reimbursement of the cost of the private school placement was not appropriate.
By: Jack Robinson
Posted on June 25, 2010
H.M. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61930 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010)
Court: United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of New Jersey
Nature of Dispute: Supplementation of the administrative record with additional evidence
Nature of Disability: Learning disability in reading and math
Issue: Whether the parents could supplement the administrative record with additional evidence as to why their daughter should be re-classified for special education.
Holding: Parents were allowed to supllement the record with additional evidence.
M.M. & E. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61186 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2010)
Court: United States Dist. Ct. for the Northern Dist. of california
Nature of Dispute: Dispute over applicability of various legal claims to redress compliance issues involving an independent educational evaluation (IEE)
Nature of Disability: Unspecified learning disability
Issue: Whether parents could bring various legal theories (504, Fifth Amendment, and IDEA) to redress IEE dispute
Holding: Court dismissed all of parents’ claims in favor of school district.
By: Jack Robinson
Posted on June 21, 2010
L.Y. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11920 (3d Cir. June 10, 2010)
Court: Third Circuit Court of Appeals, New Jersey
Nature of Case: Injunction for “stay put” placement at private school during pendency of litigation
Nature of Disability: Unspecified learning disability
Issue: Whether charter school was “current educational placement” for stay put purposes where charter school IEP Team determined that private school was necessary to provide FAPE.
Holding: 3rd Circuit affirmed district court decision in favor of school district that charter school was student’s “current educational placement” and that charter school and parents could not dictate placement over school district’s objection.
M.C.E. v. Bd. of Educ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58942 (D. Md. June 15, 2010)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Dist. of Maryland
Nature of Case: Motion to supplement the record with additional evidence
Nature of Disability: ADHD and anxiety disorder
Issue: Whether parent could supplement the administrative record with newspaper articles about restraint and seclusion and the school at issue.
Holding: Motion denied. Court found that this issue was sufficiently established at the hearing.
T.S. v. Weast, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57946 (D. Md. June 10, 2010)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Dist. of Maryland
Nature of Case: Private school tuition reimbursement
Nature of Disability: ADHD, speech-language impairment, developmental coordination disorder with dyspraxia, and also electrical status epilepticus of sleep (“ESES”)
Issue: Whether the school district’s proposed IEP was reasonably calculated to provide an appropriate education
Holding: For the school district.
By: Jack Robinson
Posted on June 11, 2010
N.S. v. Hawaii, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57045 (D. Haw. 2010)
Court: U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Hawaii
Nature of Case: Private tuition reimbursement for unilaterally placed three year old with autism. Dispute over adequacy of IEP involving: need for OT and Speech services during ESY; specificity of IEP; definition of placement.
Nature of Disability: Autism
Issue: Whether the student’s IEP provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Holding: Affirmed the hearing officer’s decision that IEP was appropriate. Tuition reimbursement denied.
B.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54743 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2010)
Court: U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of New York
Nature of Case: Recovery of attorneys fees
Nature of Disability: ADHD
Issue: Whether parent/guardian was the prevailing party (and to what extent) in two underlying due process hearings.
Holding: In favor of parents.
By: Jack Robinson
Posted on June 9, 2010
The Colorado Special Education Fiscal Advisory Committee (SEFAC) reviewed the special education high cost student applications for the 2008 – 2009 school year and announced the grant awards on June 4, 2010.
Four million dollars was appropriated in the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act to reimburse school districts for students in high cost placements or programs ‐‐ $2 million for in‐district high cost programs, and $2 million for high cost out-of-district placements.
The SEFAC reviewed applications from several school districts and BOCES and determined which grant applications to approve, and the amounts to be awarded after applicable revenues were deducted from the costs submitted for reimbursement. In making its grant awards, the SEFAC considered each school district’s annual audited expenditures, and the percentage high cost claims represented of the district’s total audited expenditures.
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS FUNDED FOR OUT OF DISTRICT PLACEMENTS
– The threshold was set at $40,000 per student.
– The appropriation funded 37 (45%) of the 82 high cost out‐of‐district students.
– After ranking the applications from 24 administrative units, only 18 AU’s were able to be funded with the money available.
Adams County School District #1 ‐ Mapleton 1 $ 83,105
Adams County School District #12 ‐ Northglenn – Thornton 12 $ 185,231
Adams County School District #14 ‐ Adams 14 $ 143,868
Adams County School District #50 ‐ Westminster 50 $ 57,310
Arapahoe County School District #1 ‐ Englewood 1 $ 64,102
Arapahoe County School District #6 ‐ Littleton 6 $ 234,774
Boulder County School District RE‐1J ‐ St. Vrain Valley RE‐1J $ 213,280
Boulder County School District RE‐2 ‐ Boulder Valley RE‐2 $ 166,235
El Paso County School District # 3 ‐ Widefield 3 $ 80,945
El Paso County School District # 8 ‐ Fountain 8 $ 46,362
Ft Lupton/Keenesburg Consortium $ 100,527
Larimer County School District R‐2J ‐ Thompson R‐2J $ 200,630
Larimer County School District R‐3 ‐ Estes Park R‐3 $ 29,660
Weld County School District # 4 ‐ Weld 4 $ 23,221
East Central BOCES $ 151,505
Mount Evans BOCES $ 88,973
Centennial BOCES $ 57,683
Ute Pass BOCES $ 72,589
TOTAL: $ 2,000,000
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS FUNDED FOR IN‐DISTRICT PLACEMENTS
– The threshold was set at $25,000 per student.
– The appropriation funded 72 (17%) of the 422 high cost in‐district students
– After ranking the applications from 29 administrative units, only 13 AU’s were able to be funded with the money available.
El Paso County District #12 ‐ Cheyenne Mtn 12 $ 138,129
Ft Lupton/Keenesburg Consortium $ 45,359
Larimer County School District R‐3 ‐ Estes Park R‐3 $ 77,129
East Central BOCES $ 132,607
Mountain BOCES $ 480,891
Northeast BOCES $ 103,842
Pikes Peak BOCES $ 185,691
San Juan BOCES $ 120,689
Southeastern BOCES $ 43,014
Uncompahgre BOCES $ 67,128
Centennial BOCES $ 64,129
Ute Pass BOCES $ 444,481
Rio Blanco BOCES $ 96,911
TOTAL: $ 2,000,000
By Jack Robinson
Posted on June 4, 2010
Seven students with autism were restrained and abused by their teacher in a northeastern Pennsylvania classroom over an extended period of time. The teacher subjected her disabled students to a range of mechanical restraints and abuse, including strapping the students to chairs, hitting them, pulling their hair, and stomping on their feet. The students were between 5 and 11 years old at the time of the abuse.
The children’s families filed a federal lawsuit against the special education teacher and her superiors, alleging they knew about the abuse but took steps to cover it up. Two paraprofessionals in the classroom reported the teacher to her supervisors at the school district, but the officials conducted no meaningful investigation, failed to report the abuse to police, and merely shuttled the abusive teacher to a neighboring school district. The school district even accused the paraprofessionals of breaking the “code of silence.”
The families of the abused children recently settled their federal lawsuit with the school district for $5 million. The school districts’ insurance carrier will pay the full amount of the settlement.
By Jack Robinson
Posted on June 4, 2010
Kalliope R. v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53426 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2010)
Court: U.S. Dist. Court for the Eastern Dist. of New York
Nature of Case: Parents sued on behalf of four minor children and the special education school the children attend (non-profit private school), seeking a declaratory judgment that the New York State Education Department (NYSED) unlawfully promulgated a policy prohibiting the use of a particular student-teacher ratio. The parents also sought to permanently enjoin NYSED from carrying out this alleged policy.
Nature of Disability: Unspecified.
Issue: Whether parents claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and whether parents have standing to sue under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Holding: The court denied the school district’s motion to dismiss.
S.C. v. Union Twp. Sch. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53562 (N.D. Ind. June 1, 2010)
Court: U.S. Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of Indiana
Nature of Case: Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record with additional evidence.
Nature of Disability: Unspecified learning disability
Issue: Whether the parents could supplement the administrative record with an IEP that was developed after the IHO rendered his decision.
Holding: In favor of the school district (motion to supplement record denied).
By Jack Robinson
