Search

The article reports on a U.S. Supreme Court case, "Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F," in which the district and a parent disagree over attempts to provide an appropriate education plan for a student with a learning disability. The case is summarized as a question of whether parents can receive reimbursement for private school placement without a child first having tried public education or services. Further information on the case is included.

The article reports on the case of Board of Education of the City of New York v. Tom F. which deals with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The background of the case is presented. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that tuition reimbursement is only available to parents whose child had previously received special education and related services from a public agency.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff claims that the New York district violated the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA) for its failure to conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York held that the district did not violate the IDEA because it properly considered and addressed the behavioral needs of the student with autism, and that the district offered Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to the child.

The article discusses a court case which rules that there is no violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It cites that a New York district recommended that a teenager with autism attend a self-contained special education class instead of a general education history class. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York held that the student's need to develop functional skills dominated the limited success, he achieved in the mainstream placement.

The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving a parent's efforts to seek reimbursement for the private school placement of his child, under the guidelines of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At question is whether it is the city of New York's responsibility to pay for the private education of a special needs student who never attended the it's public schools. The parent contends that the school district failed to meet his son's needs.

The article focuses on the court ruling on a case concerning the recommendation of a New York school district to put a student in a special education school. The father argued that his son was improperly classified as having an emotional disturbance. The school resource officer held that the district's action did not violate the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Districts can place students with disabilities in more restrictive settings once they still do not show any progress.

The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York ruled that a New York district did not violate the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by developing an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that lacked measurable goals. In B.P. and S.H. v. New York City Department of Education, the court denied the parents' request for tuition reimbursement and granted the district's motion for judgment.

The article discusses a court case involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims of parents of an eighth-grader with Asperger syndrome against a New York school district. The court ruled that the parents needed to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing lawsuit against the school district. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The article discusses a court case on the educational services of a multiple disabled student in New York City. The 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an order that require the district to continue funding the student's postgraduate educational program while her free appropriate public education (FAPE) appeal was pending. The Court concluded that the parent's March 2006 filing of FAPE was untimely since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action was accrued in 2003.

The article discusses a decision by the state of New York to cut off aid to families who home school their disabled children. Tom Bushnell of the National Challenged Homeschoolers Associated Network discusses the amount of oversight families face. The U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) can be interpreted to support both sides of the argument. Bruce Hunter of the American Association of School Administrators addresses the issue from a financial perspective.

The article discusses the New York State's decision to end special education services for home schooled children. The case in which State Review Officer Paul Kelly ruled that home schooled children do not have to be recognized by the state as private school children, is the subject of a court case H.C. v. Colton-Pierrepont Central School District, No. 7:07-cv-944. The case doesn't turn on whether the state is obliged to provide services to home schooled children with disabilities.

The article reports that home schooled children in New York State are no longer eligible for special education services. New York state doesn't recognize home schools as private schools. The provision of the individualized education program states that a public school district to home schooled students with disabilities who are isn't authorized to provide services under the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or New York state law.