RELEVANT CASE LAW

FAPE

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 US 176 (1982)

(enumerated the FAPE standard – reasonable educational benefit, not intended to maximize a student’s academic potential or offer the best that money can buy)

 

East Windsor Bd. of Ed., 808 F.2d 987 (3rd Cir. 1986)

(rejected the notion that the provision of any educational benefit satisfies the IDEA)

 

Polk v. Central Susquehanna IU, 853 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1988)

(an appropriate education requires significant learning and meaningful benefit, more than trivial benefit)

 

Laughlin v. Central Bucks School District, 20 IDELR 894 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

(schools must offer educational programs that are likely to produce progress, not regression or de minimus educational benefit)

 

Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 30 IDELR 41 (3rd Cir. 1999)

(IDEA requires a student by student analysis that carefully considers the student’s individual abilities to determine whether an IEP is appropriate)

 

Graduation

Wexler v. Westfield Bd. of Ed., 784 F.2d 176 (3rd Cir. 1986)

(services should end when the child graduates unless graduation is a “sham”)

 

Woodland Hills School District v. S.F., Pa. Commonwealth Feb, 2000

(A student with a disability does not have the right to participate in a commencement ceremony where he has not yet satisfied the school district’s criteria for graduation)

 

Independent Evaluations

Jonathon G. v. Lower Merion, 955 F.Supp 413, 25 IDELR 603, (E.D.Pa. 1997)

(reimbursement for an evaluation is appropriate where the evaluation was sought because of a disagreement with the school district evaluation and the IEE results in a change in the IEP or there was a determination that the IEP in question was not appropriate)

 

Services for Medically Fragile Students

Cedar Rapids v. Garret F., 29 IDELR 966 (1999)

(schools must provide medical procedures to students with disabilities if non-physicians can deliver those services, but not if they require the attention of a doctor)

 

Reimbursement for Private Schools

School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985)

(courts may order a school district to reimburse parents for private school costs if the IEP offered by the school district was inappropriate)

 

Florence County School District v. Carter, 114 S.Ct. 361, 20 IDELR 532 (1993)

(tuition reimbursement is only justified if the proposed IEP was inappropriate and the private school placement was proper under the IDEA)

 

Remedies

 

         Money damages

W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 23 IDELR 411 (3rd Cir, 1995)

(money damages are available as a potential remedy)

           

         Compensatory Education

Lester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865, 16 IDELR 1354 (3rd Cir 1990) cert denied sub nom. Chester Upland School District v. Lester H. 499 U.S. 923 (1991)

(comp ed available to remedy IDEA violations beyond age 21)

 

Carlisle Area School District v. Scott P. 62 F.3d 520, 23 IDELR 293 (3rd Cir. 1995) amending 22 IDELR 1017 (3rd Cir) cert. Denied 517 U.S. 1135 (1996).

(bad faith on the part of the district is not required for comp ed award)

 

M.C. v. Central Regional School District, 81 F.3rd 389, 23 IDELR 1181 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 866 (1996).

(a school district has an affirmative duty to realize that a disable student is not making appropriate educational progress)

 

See also:

Big Beaver Falls Area School District v. Jackson, 624 A.2d 806, 19 IDELR 371 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1993)

Neshaminy School District v. Karla B. 25 IDELR 725 (E.D. Pa. 1997)

Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 30 IDELR 41 (3rd Cir. 1999)

Millersburg v. Lynda T., 27 IDELR 595 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1998)

 

Burdens of Proof

           

         Due process hearings

Oberti v. Bd. of Education, 995 F.2d 1204, 19 IDELR 908 (3rd Cir. 1993)

(The school district bears the burden of proving compliance with LRE regardless of which party brought the claim.)

 

Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Bd. of Ed.,, 993 F.2d 1031 (3rd Cir. 1993)

(When a change in IEP is sought, regardless of who seeks the change, the burden of showing that the placement is appropriate rests with the District.)

 

Carlisle Area School District v. Scott P. 62 F.3d 520, 23 IDELR 293 (3rd Cir. 1995) amending 22 IDELR 1017 (3rd Cir) cert. Denied 517 U.S. 1135 (1996).

(The school district bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of the IEP it has proposed)

 

Least Restrictive Environment

Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204, 19 IDELR 908 (3rd Cir. 1993)

(A school is prohibited from placing a child with disabilities outside of a regular education classroom if educating the child in regular education with supplementary aids and services can be achieved satisfactorily.  Created a three part test)

 

Cheltenham School District v. Joel P. by Suzanne P., 949 F. Supp. 346, 25 IDELR 138 (E.D.Pa. 1996)

(the IDEA prefers that a child be placed in the school that he would attend if not disabled; however, the IDEA only requires that the child be placed as close as possible to a child’s home – distance is only one factor)

 

Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 30 IDELR 41 (3rd Cir. 1999)

(the court made clear that the IDEA requires an education to be both appropriate and in the LRE)

 

Extended School Year

Battle v. Pennsylvania, 629 F.2d 269 (3rd Cir 1980) cert. denied, 452 U.S. 968 (1981)

(policies that forbid any child from receiving summer services are in conflict with the mandates of the IDEA that require that the needs of the individual child be considered)

 

Pendent Placement – Stay Put

Matthew K. v. Parkland School District, 27 IDELR 831 (E.D.Pa. 1998)

Drinker v. Colonial School District, 78 F.3d 859, 23 IDELR 1112 (3rd Cir. 1996)

(if an IEP has been implemented, then that program’s placement will be the one subject to the stay put provision, if it hasn’t, then the current educational placement will be the operative placement under which the child is actually receiving instruction at the time the dispute arose)