819 F. Supp. 2d 90
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- S.K. has autism and, as of 2008, transitioned from CPSE preschool services to kindergarten with an IEP that mixed group placement and reduced one-on-one therapies.
- The preschool IEP provided 8:1+1 class, 10 hours/week home ABA, and 1:1 speech and occupational therapy; the kindergarten IEP reduced services and eliminated home ABA, while maintaining some 1:1 therapies.
- Plaintiffs sought review of an IHO decision finding MCC tuition reimbursement appropriate after a July/September 2008 due process hearing; the SRO reversed, ruling the Department offered a FAPE for 2008-2009.
- Plaintiffs filed suit under the IDEA seeking reversal of the SRO and tuition reimbursement; the court reviewed the administrative record de novo with added evidence per 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii).
- Magistrate Judge Gold recommended granting plaintiffs’ summary judgment and direct tuition reimbursement to MCC for the 2008-2009 school year; the Court adopted the Report in full.
- Key issues centered on whether the IEP violated IDEA by failing to conduct a FBA/BIP, failing to identify progress-measurement methods, and failing to provide required related services (speech therapy and parent training), and whether MCC was an appropriate placement under Burlington-Carter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the IEP's failure to conduct a FBA/BIP deny FAPE? | S.K.'s interfering behaviors warranted a FBA/BIP. | FBA/BIP were not required given behavior management in classroom and evidence of reduced interfering behaviors. | No denial; SRO's determination supported non-requirement of FBA/BIP. |
| Did the IEP fail to identify progress-measurement methods? | IEP lacked measurable goals and progress-measurement procedures. | Other evidence showed progress tracking; formal measures were not essential. | Deficiency did not deny FAPE; SRO's conclusion upheld. |
| Was the IEP's provision of related services (speech therapy and parent training) adequate? | IEP failed to provide required 1:1 speech therapy and parent counseling/training. | In-class speech instruction and available parent supports at MCC sufficed. | IEP deprived S.K. of FAPE when 1:1 speech therapy and parent training were terminated without adequate substitutes. |
| Was MCC an appropriate private placement under Burlington-Carter Prongs I–III? | MCC offered the necessary services (1:1 speech/ABA, parental training) lacking in the IEP. | Public placement would have been adequate; MCC was not necessary. | MCC was appropriate; three-prong Burlington-Carter test satisfied. |
| Should tuition be reimbursed directly to MCC given the Burlington-Carter findings? | Equities favor reimbursement because MCC provided the needed education. | Equities might weigh against reimbursement if parents were uncooperative. | Full reimbursement warranted; direct payment to MCC ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. v. Burlington Sch. Dist., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (establishes Burlington-Carter three-prong test for private-school tuition reimbursement)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (equities and private placement considerations in reimbursement)
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (foundation for 'free appropriate public education' standard and educational benefit)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (deference to administrative decisions and educational policy considerations)
- A.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2009) (deference to SRO decisions when reviewing IHO findings; thorough review matters)
- Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (analysis of IEP adequacy and related services under IDEA)
- M.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (deliberations on effectiveness of services and progress toward benefits)
- T.Y. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009) (an IDEA case emphasizing deference to administrative findings on progress and services)
- R.K. ex rel. M.R. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 615 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (parental cooperation and related considerations in reimbursement decisions)