Federal Appellate Court Sets New Standard on Unilateral Special Ed Parental Placements |
On Board Online • March 31, 2014
By Pilar Sokol
Deputy General Counsel
A federal appellate court ruling in a case involving the Scarsdale public school system limits the ability of school districts to defend themselves in special education tuition reimbursement cases.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in C.L. v. Scarsdale UFSD sets a new judicial standard to be applied when parents place their child in a private school specializing in the education of students with disabilities and seek reimbursement for tuition.
In such cases, parents claim that the school district failed to meet its obligations under the federal Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It has long been established that parents can obtain reimbursement if there is a finding that the school district indeed failed to make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to the child. This is true as long the placement unilaterally selected by the parents is appropriate and as long as nothing else (including, but not limited to, a lack of parental cooperation) prevents an award of reimbursement.
Under the new standard, school districts no longer will be able to argue that parents are not entitled to reimbursement because their unilaterally selected private placement is “more restrictive” than a public school setting.
The IDEA requires that children with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) with non-disabled children to the maximum extent appropriate to the disabled child’s educational needs.
In the Second Circuit’s view, restrictiveness is a factor to be considered when assessing the appropriateness of a parent’s choice of placement. However, in C.L. v. Scarsdale, the Second Circuit qualified the scope of the restrictiveness analysis. The court said it is not appropriate to compare the restrictiveness of a parental private placement with that of a public school setting, when a school district has failed to make FAPE available.
The Second Circuit gave several reasons for its ruling. According to the court, private schools that specialize in educating students with disabilities are necessarily more restrictive than a public school setting which educates both disabled and non-disabled students. In addition, other circuit courts of appeals have determined that the IDEA’s LRE requirements do not apply to unilateral parental private placements. Some courts also have determined that it would undermine the right of parents to unilaterally withdraw a child from the public school system if private parental placements were required to be at least as non-restrictive as the school district’s public schools.
The Second Circuit said that restrictiveness of a private parental placement remains relevant:
• To determine whether the private placement is “more restrictive than necessary to meet the child’s needs.”
• “In choosing between…otherwise appropriate private placement alternatives.”
The New York State School Boards Association, joined by the National School Boards Association, submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of the school district in this case.