Goldstein, Ackerhalt & Pletcher
70 Niagara Street, Suite 200 Buffalo , New York, 14202
Phone: 716-362-1533
Fax: 716-362-1534

The GAP Attorneys Blog

Meeting the needs of people with disabilities, their families, educators & service providers

Posts Tagged ‘Borderline intellectual functioning’

School districts responsible to offer IEPs to private school students

Thursday, July 24th, 2014

District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 62 IDELR 13 (D.D.C. 2013): A U.S. District Court held that a school district must develop and offer an IEP to its resident students who are placed in private schools by their parents.  The school district initially offered the student, who was diagnosed with a cognitive disorder and borderline intellectual functioning, an IEP (which, in the Court’s view, offered the student an appropriate education), but refused to develop an IEP for the subsequent school year when the student’s parents notified the school they intended to maintain the student in his private placement.  The Court held that the school district denied the student an appropriate education, as the district is obligated to develop and offer an IEP to each of its resident students with disabilities.  Here, the district conditioned its offer of an IEP on the student’s re-enrollment in the public school system.  However, the Court found such a condition improper.  In the Court’s view, the school district must develop an IEP.  If, after offering an appropriate IEP, the parents reject the public schools in favor a private placement, at that point the school district is no longer obligated to provide services.  Accordingly, here, the school district failed to offer an appropriate program and was therefore ordered to reimburse the parents’ for the private placement.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on School districts responsible to offer IEPs to private school students

Parent who claims denial of FAPE under IDEA does not have to allege bad faith or discriminatory intent to state a claim under Section 504.

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

Rayan R. v. Northwestern Education Intermediate Unit No. 19, 58 IDELR 95 (M.D. Pa. 2012):  A U.S. District Court held that a parent could maintain a claim of discrimination under Section 504 by virtue of her claim that the school district failed to provide a free appropriate public education to her school-aged child under the IDEA.

The child, who was diagnosed with autism, borderline intellectual functioning, ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, and an adjustment disorder, received services from the school district as a preschool student, but the school failed to provide adequate services and did not appropriately plan for the student’s transition to kindergarten.  The parent alleged the school district denied him a FAPE, and brought suit under the IDEA and Section 504.  The school district argued that since the student was over the age of three, but not yet in kindergarten, there could be no discrimination because it did not offer a “programming analogue for non-disabled children.”  The Court rejected such position, noting that Part B of the IDEA applied to the student, who was over the age of three, despite the fact that he was not yet in kindergarten.  Accordingly (based on precedent in that federal circuit), allegations of a denial of FAPE under Part B of the IDEA to this school-aged child, thereby states a claim of discrimination under Section 504 (even without any allegation of bad faith or discriminatory intent).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Parent who claims denial of FAPE under IDEA does not have to allege bad faith or discriminatory intent to state a claim under Section 504.

Parents awarded reimbursement for unilateral placement after school district merely recycled student’s IEP from prior year

Thursday, January 13th, 2011

E.S. v. Katonah-Lewisboro School District, 55 IDELR 130 (S.D.N.Y.  2010):  The parents of a student, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type and borderline intellectual functioning, sought reimbursement for a unilateral private school placement for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years.  Although the court affirmed the portion of the decision from the Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) and State Review Officer (SRO) that the school district offered a student a FAPE during the 2006-2007 school year, the court overturned the portion of the decision that concluded the student was offered a FAPE during the 2007-2008 school year.  The court awarded the parents reimbursement for the 2007-2008 school year.

The court reasoned that the school district failed to take into account the progress the student made toward the goals on his IEP for the 2006-2007 school year and developed an IEP for the 2007-2008 IEP that was substantially the same.  The court stated that it is not legally sufficient to merely recycle an IEP from the prior year.  The court also reasoned that the student’s 2007-2008 IEP recommended the student for placement with students with significantly different needs, and failed to include a multisensory reading program at which the student demonstrated progress during the 2006-2007 school year.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Parents awarded reimbursement for unilateral placement after school district merely recycled student’s IEP from prior year

Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS).