NYLJ:Hearing Must Determine If Girl With Learning Disabilities Was Deprived of “Free and Appropriate Education” by Constant Bullying

T.K. v. New York City Dept. of Edu., 10-CV-00752

This case presents the largely unresolved issue of the extent to which bullying by other students inhibits a disabled child from being educated appropriately, and what her school must do about it. A strict legal test is developed and applied. Plaintiff L.K. acting through her parents, challenges her public school placement by the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After exhausting her administrative remedies, she brings this action arguing that the placement was procedurally and substantively inappropriate, and her parents seek reimbursement for private school tuition. The DOE moves for summary judgment. The primary complaint is that L.K. was deprived of an appropriate education because her assigned public school did nothing to prevent her from being so bullied by other students as to seriously reduce the opportunity for an appropriate education. Such a contention, under the Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) provisions that require a proper school placement and appropriate education, apparently have not yet been ruled upon by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. For the reasons stated below, the issue requires a court evidentiary hearing, and, a possible remand to the state authorities for a rehearing.

Read the full text of decision here (requires free registration).

SmartBrief: Microsoft releases accessibility improvements, resources

Image via CrunchBase

Microsoft is aiming to make some of its programs more accessible for those with disabilities, releasing new features on Thursday for its Wordand PowerPoint programs. The company also launched Microsoft Accessibility Tools & Training, a collection of online resources and training tools to help developers increase the accessibility of sites and programs for those with disabilities. T.H.E. Journal (3/17)

Related articles

• Microsoft Announces New Accessibility Offerings (blogs.technet.com)
• Microsoft launches free Accessibility Tools, Training Courses & Accessibility Resource Guide for Developers (obieosobalu.wordpress.com)
• STAMP and DAISY, accessibility add-ins for Office 2010 from Microsoft(obieosobalu.wordpress.com)
• Free online accessibility training for developers (i-programmer.info)

 

NYLJ: City Told to Pay School Directly for Disabled Child’s Tuition Under IDEA

Mr. and Mrs. A v. New York City Department of Education, 09 Civ. 5097 (PGG)

U.S. District Court, Southern District

City Told to Pay School Directly for Disabled Child’s Tuition

 

This case presents the following question of first impression:

 

1. When a child with disabilities has been denied a free and appropriate public education; and

 

2. the child’s parents have enrolled the child in an appropriate private school; and

 

3. the equities favor an award of the costs of private school tuition; but

 

4. the parents, due to a lack of financial resources, have not made tuition payments but are legally obligated to do so;

 

does this Court’s authority under Section 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. 1415 (i)(2)(C)(iii), “to grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate,” include the power to order a school district to make a retroactive tuition payment directly to the private school? The New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor, defendants herein, contend that IDEA grants courts no such authority, arguing that the private school tuition remedy is available only to parents with the financial means to pay–in the first instance–private school tuition out-of-pocket. This Court concludes that imposing such a limitation on this remedy is inconsistent with the statutory language and with Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting IDEA, and would be entirely antithetical to Congress’s clearly expressed legislative intent and purpose in enacting IDEA.

 

National Association of Administrative Law Judges establishes Special Education IHO Section

Image via Wikipedia

NAALJ is in the process of establishing the Section under the direction of its chair, Jim Rosenfeld, ofSeattle University School of Law, and the newly-appointed NAALJ liaison, Judge Jim Murray of the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings. The only requirements for membership in the Section are membership in NAALJ ($50.00 per year) and being a special education impartial hearing officer (IHO) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (All IHOs are, of course, eligible to join NAALJ.) The broader objective of the Section is to provide a forum for the sharing of ideas and experiences and for contributing members’ unique viewpoint to the improvement of special education dispute resolution process. To join the Section and to discuss how you can participate in this effort, contact the Section Chair, Jim Rosenfeld at rosenfeld@seattleu.edu or Jim Murray, the NAALJ Special Education Section Liaison atj.murray@OAH.state.md.us.

 

 

Related articles

• How Much of Your Child’s Special Education Meeting Did You Understand?(schoolpsychologistfiles.blogspot.com)
• Goal Setting in Special Education (brighthub.com)
• Section 504 and ADA – the Redheaded Stepchildren of Special Education Law (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• The Meaning of BEH in Special Education (brighthub.com)
• Special Education and Secondary Transitional Services Policies(socyberty.com)

 

NYLJ: Admission to Police by Autistic Child Made Within ‘Arm’s Reach of His Mother’ Ruled Admissible

Family Court, New York County

Family Law

Admission to Police by Autistic Child Made Within ‘Arm’s Reach of His Mother’ Ruled Admissible,rejecting, inter alia, defense expert’s testimony of his opinion that defendant would have been unable to assert himself to the police

Matter of Akeem Z, D-4376/10

 

YEAR IN REVIEW: NATIONAL CASE LAW UPDATE UNDER THE IDEA AND § 504/A.D.A. Perry A. Zirkel University Professor of Education and Law Lehigh University

I found a useful compilation of the year’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ["IDEA']  decisions here:

http://dpi.state.wi.us/sped/pdf/ldrcon10-zirkel-year-in-review.pdf

Related articles

• New Book, ‘People Who Raised Me Beyond’, Describes Academic Accomplishments of Dr. Kristin Rytter, Despite Significant Disabilities(prweb.com)
• Which One is Better? 504 or IEP (brighthub.com)
• Is ADHD a Disability If a Child’s Grades Are Good? (everydayhealth.com)

 

NYSED: Student Registration Guidance

Legal Clips » New York state’€™s education department recommends local school districts do not ask for information related to enrolling students’€™ immigration status

NYDE issued a memo in which it explained that a 1982 Supreme Court decision had recognized the right of all children, regardless of immigration status, to attend public school as long as they met the age and residency requirements established by state law. The memo states: “Accordingly, at the time of registration schools should avoid asking questions related to immigration status or that may reveal a child’s immigration status, such as asking for a Social Security number.

For Full Text of the memo click here.

Legal Clips-School Law

Legal Clips

Legal Clips, a service of the National School Boards Association Office of General Counsel has a new home. You may now subscribe to Legal Clips in a variety of ways:

1. Simply visit the new Legal Clips website: legalclips.nsba.org/
2. Subscribe to the new Legal Clips RSS feed: legalclips.nsba.org/?feed=rss2
3. Subscribe to their new e-newsletter. (Legal Clips is switching to a new e-newsletter service next week. New subscriptions have been suspended until then. Check back in June!)

This free service provides thousands of subscribers with weekly updates on important and interesting school law issues, as well as helpful resources. Anyone may subscribe. Your input is both welcome and encouraged. They hope this new website will become an interactive community generating vibrant and meaningful discussions on school law issues. You can post comments on the new website, or simply follow them on Twitter@legalclips.

T.Y. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., No. 08-3527 (2d Circuit)

In an action for tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), summary judgment for defendant department of education is affirmed where: 1) because the IDEA does not require that an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) name a specific school placement, plaintiff-child’s IEP was not procedurally deficient; and 2) there was substantial evidence in the record that the IEP provided significant benefits to plaintiff in addressing his problematic behaviors. Read full text of decision.

FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court -06/22/09

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, EDUCATION LAW

Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., No. 08–305
In an action challenging a hearing officer’s order reimbursing fees paid by Plaintiff’s parents for his special education program under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), the award is affirmed where IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide a free appropriate public education and the private-school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special-education services through the public school.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WATER LAW

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, No. 07–984
In an action against the Army Corps of Engineers challenging the Corps’ grant of a permit to a mining company to discharge waste materials, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the Corps, not the EPA, had the authority to permit the discharge, and the Corps’ interpretation of Clean Water Act regulations was entitled to deference.

CIVIL RIGHTS, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT LAW

Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. 1. v. Holder, No. 08–322
In an action seeking relief under the “bailout” provision in Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, which allows a “political subdivision” to be released from the preclearance requirements if certain conditions are met, the dismissal of the complaint is reversed where the Act must be interpreted to permit all political subdivisions, including Plaintiff district, to seek to bail out from the preclearance requirements.