Court Decisions

IMPORTANT STATUTES

  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq.
  • IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 300.
  • New York Education Law, NY Educ § 4401, et. seq.
  • New York Commissioner Regulations, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200, et. seq.
  • Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g), et. seq.
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et. seq.

IMPORTANT COURT DECISIONS

  • Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) – An IEP must be reasonably calculated to allow a child to receive educational benefits. The district is not required to provide every service necessary to maximize a child’s potential.
  • Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985) – A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim.
  • Florence County School District IV v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1988) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that a court may order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally place their child in a private school that provides an education that is appropriate. The fact that the private school selected by the parent is not approved by the State, is not dispositive of the parent’s claim for reimbursement.
  • Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2001) – The court held that there is a strong preference for children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent that is appropriate.
  • Connors v. Mills, 34 F.Supp.2d 795 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) – The court held that where parents establish that they do have the financial means to pay for the tuition of a non-approved private school, and the Burlington test has been met, prospective funding may be awarded.
  • Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 322 (1988) – The purpose of the “Pendency” or “stay put” provision is intended to provide consistency and stability in the education of a child with a disability.