Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
SUPREME COURT DECISION!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sheila" data-source="post: 85655" data-attributes="member: 23"><p>Couple of articles. Access the urls for internal links.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.nysun.com/new-york/schools-stymie-justices/64336/" target="_blank">http://www.nysun.com/new-york/schools-stymie-justices/64336/</a></p><p>Schools Stymie Justices</p><p>Deadlock Over New York Case</p><p></p><p>By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN</p><p>Staff Reporter of the Sun</p><p>October 11, 2007</p><p></p><p>Parents who want to send a disabled child to a private school at government expense no longer face as high a hurdle, at least in New York City.</p><p></p><p>A split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday will have the effect of forbidding the city's Department of Education from demanding that children with special needs first try out the public schools before they seek reimbursement for a private education.</p><p></p><p>The eight justices who heard the case Justice Kennedy recused himself split 44. The divided decision leaves standing a ruling against the education department that a federal appellate court in Manhattan handed down last year.</p><p></p><p>That lower court ruling carries no weight beyond three states. In the rest of the country, the vast majority of school districts are under little, if any, court guidance on the issue. The precise question that the Supreme Court's split decision did not answer was whether disabled children are entitled to reimbursement for a private education only after they have been enrolled in a public program and found it to be inadequate. That requirement has been criticized by some parents who say it forces children to waste time at programs that are a poor fit for their special needs.</p><p></p><p>Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which covers children with disabilities ranging from dyslexia to autism to severe physical handicaps, a school district is responsible for paying to send a child to a private school if the district is unable to provide an "appropriate" public education. During the last school year, the city received 3,675 such requests. In about half, the child had never before tried a public special needs program, according to figures provided by the education department. When the city does pay to send a child to a private school, the average cost is $27,000 a year, although the costs can approach $300,000 for some intensive programs.</p><p></p><p>One school official said the decision yesterday ensures that the rising number of reimbursement claims the city has faced in the past five years "will only increase."</p><p></p><p>By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN</p><p>Staff Reporter of the Sun</p><p>October 11, 2007</p><p>[Continued from page 1 of 2]</p><p></p><p>The lawyer who argued the case against the city, Paul Gardephe of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP said he predicted the ruling would encourage more tuition reimbursement claims by focusing the attention of parents on the benefits provided under IDEA.</p><p>"Just the publicity may spark more of this," he said.</p><p></p><p>Yesterday's brief order gives no indication of how each justice voted. It is unclear whether Justice Kennedy is recusing himself from all cases involving this issue. It is unlikely the court would agree to take a similar case anytime soon without a full panel of nine justices available to decide it.</p><p></p><p>The case, Board of Education v. Tom F., was brought by a former executive at Viacom, Thomas Freston, on behalf of his son, Gilbert, who is now a high school senior. The city had at first agreed to send Gilbert, who was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, to the private Stephen Gaynor School on the Upper West Side without demanding that he first try a public program. But after two years of paying Gilbert's tuition, the city told Mr. Freston that Gilbert would need to see if a public program was an appropriate fit.</p><p></p><p>A statement yesterday sent on behalf of the plaintiff stated that he brought the case "to ensure that our government, as a matter of public policy, fulfills its obligations to families by ensuring they have access to suitable special education programs."</p><p></p><p>Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg defended the city's decision to demand that the Frestons enroll their son in a public school before putting in a claim with the city.</p><p></p><p>"They just decided their kid needed private schools and never sent their child to public schools and just sent us a bill," Mr. Bloomberg said. "We thought that that was not appropriate, that the city can't afford to send every child to private school."</p><p></p><p>A federal appellate court with jurisdiction over three southern states, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, has ruled that parents need not first send their children to public schools to be eligible for reimbursement. The same holding by New York's 2nd Circuit, which was allowed to stand in yesterday's decision, is binding over New York, Connecticut and Vermont. But the 1st Circuit Court, which covers Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire, reached the opposite result in a 2004 decision.</p><p></p><p></p><p>From <a href="http://www.boston.com/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/</a></p><p></p><p>By David B. Caruso, Associated Press Writer | October 10, 2007</p><p></p><p>NEW YORK --A multimillionaire who sued New York City over its refusal to pay for his learning-disabled son's private school education won by default Wednesday when the Supreme Court couldn't agree which side was right.</p><p></p><p>The justices split 4-4, leaving intact a lower court's ruling in favor of former Viacom and MTV executive Tom Freston.</p><p></p><p>The potential tiebreaker, Justice Anthony Kennedy, did not participate in the case. The court gave no explanation for his absence.</p><p></p><p>On its face, the outcome means that New York City's Education Department will have to pay Freston a little less than $22,000 to cover a year's tuition at the Manhattan private school his son attended after he was diagnosed with mild learning disabilities in the late 1990s.</p><p></p><p>But the court didn't address the case's key question: Do the parents of special education students have a right to demand a private school education for their kids without giving public schools a try first?</p><p></p><p>The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that parents who can prove that their child couldn't get an appropriate education in the public schools may sue for private-school tuition reimbursement, even if they never tried the public system.</p><p></p><p>Freston said in a news release that he believed the Supreme Court had affirmed that "children with learning challenges have a right, without jumping through hoops, to attend schools capable of providing them with an education that truly accommodates their individual requirements."</p><p></p><p>New York City officials had agreed that some students do need private placements, but argued that federal law barred payments to pupils who do not enroll in public schools for at least a brief period of time. The city's chief appeals lawyer, Leonard Koerner, said letting students skip the public school system entirely will make it tougher for parents and teachers to collectively evaluate where a child would do best.</p><p></p><p>Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city also deserved a chance to "protect the taxpayer" from having to pay for private school placements that aren't necessary.</p><p></p><p>"The city can't afford to send every child to private school," he said.</p><p></p><p>After his son was diagnosed with learning disabilities, Freston approached the city about a possible placement in a public special education program, but he was unhappy with their recommendations and sent the boy instead to the Stephen Gaynor School, a well-regarded academy for children with learning problems.</p><p></p><p>The city initially paid $50,000 in tuition over two years before deciding to stop the payments and insist that the boy attend a city-run program.</p><p></p><p>Freston filed a legal challenge, and a hearing officer initially sided with the family, saying the city's education plan was inappropriate. A judge's subsequent ruling in favor of the city was overturned on appeal.</p><p></p><p>The boy, meanwhile, improved his school performance significantly and transferred back into regular classes.</p><p></p><p>Nationwide, the number of special education students placed in private schools at public expense has risen from about 52,012 pupils in 1996 to 71,082 in 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Education.</p><p></p><p>Gary Mayerson, a lawyer who works with the group Autism Speaks, said the people who would benefit most from the case are poor and middle-income families who couldn't afford a private school placement for their children without city help.</p><p></p><p>Freston said all tuition reimbursements he has received from the city have been donated to special education programs for public school students.</p><p></p><p>------</p><p></p><p>Associated Press writer Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this report.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sheila, post: 85655, member: 23"] Couple of articles. Access the urls for internal links. [url]http://www.nysun.com/new-york/schools-stymie-justices/64336/[/url] Schools Stymie Justices Deadlock Over New York Case By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun October 11, 2007 Parents who want to send a disabled child to a private school at government expense no longer face as high a hurdle, at least in New York City. A split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday will have the effect of forbidding the city's Department of Education from demanding that children with special needs first try out the public schools before they seek reimbursement for a private education. The eight justices who heard the case Justice Kennedy recused himself split 44. The divided decision leaves standing a ruling against the education department that a federal appellate court in Manhattan handed down last year. That lower court ruling carries no weight beyond three states. In the rest of the country, the vast majority of school districts are under little, if any, court guidance on the issue. The precise question that the Supreme Court's split decision did not answer was whether disabled children are entitled to reimbursement for a private education only after they have been enrolled in a public program and found it to be inadequate. That requirement has been criticized by some parents who say it forces children to waste time at programs that are a poor fit for their special needs. Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which covers children with disabilities ranging from dyslexia to autism to severe physical handicaps, a school district is responsible for paying to send a child to a private school if the district is unable to provide an "appropriate" public education. During the last school year, the city received 3,675 such requests. In about half, the child had never before tried a public special needs program, according to figures provided by the education department. When the city does pay to send a child to a private school, the average cost is $27,000 a year, although the costs can approach $300,000 for some intensive programs. One school official said the decision yesterday ensures that the rising number of reimbursement claims the city has faced in the past five years "will only increase." By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun October 11, 2007 [Continued from page 1 of 2] The lawyer who argued the case against the city, Paul Gardephe of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP said he predicted the ruling would encourage more tuition reimbursement claims by focusing the attention of parents on the benefits provided under IDEA. "Just the publicity may spark more of this," he said. Yesterday's brief order gives no indication of how each justice voted. It is unclear whether Justice Kennedy is recusing himself from all cases involving this issue. It is unlikely the court would agree to take a similar case anytime soon without a full panel of nine justices available to decide it. The case, Board of Education v. Tom F., was brought by a former executive at Viacom, Thomas Freston, on behalf of his son, Gilbert, who is now a high school senior. The city had at first agreed to send Gilbert, who was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, to the private Stephen Gaynor School on the Upper West Side without demanding that he first try a public program. But after two years of paying Gilbert's tuition, the city told Mr. Freston that Gilbert would need to see if a public program was an appropriate fit. A statement yesterday sent on behalf of the plaintiff stated that he brought the case "to ensure that our government, as a matter of public policy, fulfills its obligations to families by ensuring they have access to suitable special education programs." Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg defended the city's decision to demand that the Frestons enroll their son in a public school before putting in a claim with the city. "They just decided their kid needed private schools and never sent their child to public schools and just sent us a bill," Mr. Bloomberg said. "We thought that that was not appropriate, that the city can't afford to send every child to private school." A federal appellate court with jurisdiction over three southern states, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, has ruled that parents need not first send their children to public schools to be eligible for reimbursement. The same holding by New York's 2nd Circuit, which was allowed to stand in yesterday's decision, is binding over New York, Connecticut and Vermont. But the 1st Circuit Court, which covers Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire, reached the opposite result in a 2004 decision. From [url]http://www.boston.com/[/url] By David B. Caruso, Associated Press Writer | October 10, 2007 NEW YORK --A multimillionaire who sued New York City over its refusal to pay for his learning-disabled son's private school education won by default Wednesday when the Supreme Court couldn't agree which side was right. The justices split 4-4, leaving intact a lower court's ruling in favor of former Viacom and MTV executive Tom Freston. The potential tiebreaker, Justice Anthony Kennedy, did not participate in the case. The court gave no explanation for his absence. On its face, the outcome means that New York City's Education Department will have to pay Freston a little less than $22,000 to cover a year's tuition at the Manhattan private school his son attended after he was diagnosed with mild learning disabilities in the late 1990s. But the court didn't address the case's key question: Do the parents of special education students have a right to demand a private school education for their kids without giving public schools a try first? The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that parents who can prove that their child couldn't get an appropriate education in the public schools may sue for private-school tuition reimbursement, even if they never tried the public system. Freston said in a news release that he believed the Supreme Court had affirmed that "children with learning challenges have a right, without jumping through hoops, to attend schools capable of providing them with an education that truly accommodates their individual requirements." New York City officials had agreed that some students do need private placements, but argued that federal law barred payments to pupils who do not enroll in public schools for at least a brief period of time. The city's chief appeals lawyer, Leonard Koerner, said letting students skip the public school system entirely will make it tougher for parents and teachers to collectively evaluate where a child would do best. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city also deserved a chance to "protect the taxpayer" from having to pay for private school placements that aren't necessary. "The city can't afford to send every child to private school," he said. After his son was diagnosed with learning disabilities, Freston approached the city about a possible placement in a public special education program, but he was unhappy with their recommendations and sent the boy instead to the Stephen Gaynor School, a well-regarded academy for children with learning problems. The city initially paid $50,000 in tuition over two years before deciding to stop the payments and insist that the boy attend a city-run program. Freston filed a legal challenge, and a hearing officer initially sided with the family, saying the city's education plan was inappropriate. A judge's subsequent ruling in favor of the city was overturned on appeal. The boy, meanwhile, improved his school performance significantly and transferred back into regular classes. Nationwide, the number of special education students placed in private schools at public expense has risen from about 52,012 pupils in 1996 to 71,082 in 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Gary Mayerson, a lawyer who works with the group Autism Speaks, said the people who would benefit most from the case are poor and middle-income families who couldn't afford a private school placement for their children without city help. Freston said all tuition reimbursements he has received from the city have been donated to special education programs for public school students. ------ Associated Press writer Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this report. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
SUPREME COURT DECISION!
Top