Tuition Reimbursement

 

Under certain circumstances, parents may seek reimbursement costs for their child’s private school tuition if they disagree with a school districts determination regarding the placement of their child. A parent who disagrees with a school district’s placement and enrolls his or her child in a private school may be entitled to tuition reimbursement if a court or hearing officer determines that the school district did not honor its obligation to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in a timely manner, and that private school placement is appropriate (20 USC § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 CFR § 300.148(c)).

 

According to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with jurisdiction over New York, the justness of a parent’s private school placement must be determined based upon the same consideration and criteria applicable to determining the appropriateness of a district’s placement (Gagliardo v. Arlington CSD, 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Green v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 50 IDELR 40 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); but compare G.R. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69348 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2009)). This means that the school must provide “educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a disabled child”. The most basic question to ask is whether or not the placement of a child into a private school is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit.” However, one must note that a student’s progress in a private placement does not itself demonstrate the appropriateness of its placement (Gagliardo v.Arlington CSD; see also Omidian v. Bd. of Educ. of New Hartford CSD, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29016 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009)). In layman’s terms, the fact that a student may progress more in private school rather than the special education programs offered by public schools is not a viable reason for tuition reimbursement. Additionally, the services and instruction tailored to meet the student’s unique meets must be supported by services that are necessary to allow the student to benefit from instruction (Davis v. Wappingers CSD, 431 Fed. Appx. 12 (2d Cir. 2011)).

 

In addition to providing a free appropriate equation, school districts are required to provide students with a special education in the least restrictive environment possible. However, a parent’s dissatisfaction with their child’s restrictive environment is not dispositive to placing a child in private school and seeking reimbursement.

 

Limitations to a Parent’s Right to Tuition Reimbursement

 

Though parents may be entitled to tuition reimbursement for their child’s special education, there are limitations to their rights to reimbursement (20 USC § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iv); 34 CFR § 300.148(e)). A parent’s right to reimbursement may be denied if the parents fail to give the school district notice at the most recent Individual Education Program (IEP) meeting. At such meetings, parents must inform school officials that they reject the proposed placement, and express their concerns. Parents also must state their intent to enroll their child in a private school at the public school’s expense, or provide a written notice 10 business days (including any holidays) before removing the child (20 USC § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I)(aa), (bb); 34 CFR §

300.148(d)(1); see J.S. v. Scarsdale UFSD, 826 F.Supp.2d 635 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2003); Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2002); Pollowitz v. Weast, 90 Fed. Appx. 438 (4th Cir. 2001)).

 

Tuition reimbursement may be denied or reduced on the following conditions:

 

  • If the school district gives the parents written notice of its intent to evaluate the child and their reasons for the evaluations prior to the parents’ removal of the child, but the parents do not make their child available for evaluation (20 USC § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(II); 34 CFR § 300.148(d)(2); see Carmel CSD v. V.P., 373 F.Supp.2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff ’d, 192 Fed. Appx. 62 (2d Cir. 2006)).

 

  • If the parents fail to cooperate with a school district by not allowing a reasonable opportunity to evaluate their child, or not making the child available for intake reviews at proposed out-of-district placement (Patricia P. v. Bd. of Educ. of Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. No. 200, 203 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2000))(J.S. v. Scarsdale UFSD).

 

  • If the parents fail to cooperate with their child’s school district in finding an appropriate placement, such as when they secure a private placement with a large non-refutable placement, before they refer their child to the committee on special education.

 

  • If a child’s poor performance in a public school program is largely due to a parents request that the child not receive specific services and modifications recommended by the committee on special education and the child’s teachers (Application of a Child with a Disability, SRO dec. no. 04-093 (2004))

 

Additional Provisions Awarded to Parents

 

Parents may place their child with a disability into another public school district, and be reimbursed for that placement should they disagree with a school district’s determination concerning their child. Parents may be entitled to reimbursement for tuition paid to another public school districts, and for reasonable transportation costs after the parents remove their child from the school district where they reside, if they are dissatisfied with the special education services provided to their child. However, to be awarded reimbursement, they must establish that the district their child was in, failed to make a free appropriate education available to their child in a timely manner, and that the placement of their child in a different school was appropriate (Application of a Child with a Disability, SRO dec. no. 07-070 (2007); see also Northeast CSD v. Sobol, 79 N.Y.2d 598 (1992)).

 

Additionally, parents may seek reimbursement for the cost of providing related services rather than the full cost of their child’s tuition at a private school. According to a federal appellate court with jurisdiction outside of New York (M.M. v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 437 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2006)), the parents did not pay tuition at the private school because the mother was an employee, however, they sought reimbursement of the cost of providing their child a particular form of therapy for deaf children because they disagreed with the methods used by the district. In this case, the parents failed to disprove the appropriateness of the district’s therapy, the court disagreed with the district that parents may only seek reimbursement of tuition costs.

 

In all, if a school district fails to provide the student a free appropriate education, parents have the right to place their children in other schools, and seek reimbursement for tuition costs and related services. These provisions are in conjunction with the parent’s ability to prove that the school district failed to provide proper education, that their decision to procure other school district, or private school services is appropriate. 

Your form message has been successfully sent.

You have entered the following data:

Please feel free to reach out to us with any inquiries!

Please correct your input in the following fields:
Error while sending the form. Please try again later.

Note: Fields marked with * are required

Contact Us

Managing Attorney

Angel A. Castro, III, Esq.

60 Broad Street

24th Floor
New York, NY

10004 

 

 

Phone: (646) 234-3177
Fax: (212) 731-0217

 

Hablamos Espanol

Visita
CNYabogado.com

 

Serving the New York Supreme Courts in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester, and Onondaga Counties, as well as the Appellate Division First, Second, Third, & Fourth Departments for Complex Litigation, Appeals, & Negotiation.

Meetings

We are available to meet in Manhattan and Syracuse, New York. If you would like to meet outside of these areas, please contact us and we can arrange for a meeting place to discuss your matter.

This website contains general info. about AA Castro C.L.A.N, PLLC and is not intended to serve as a source of legal advice.

 

Neither receipt of information presented on this site nor any email or other electronic communication sent to Castro CLAN PLLC or its lawyers through this site will create an attorney-client relationship, and no such email or communication will be treated as confidential. No user of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Castro CLAN PLLC expressly disclaims liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this site.

 

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Print Print | Sitemap
© Complex Litigation, Appeals & Negotiation by Angel Antonio Castro, III, Esq.