Ed Law Briefly: District Court Erred By Rejecting State Review Officer's Findings in IDEA Tuition Reimbursement Case

RCEd Commentary

Background:  A.N.H., a ninth grade student at New York’s Oneonta High School, began experiencing a significant drop in her academic performance. She failed nearly all of her courses and exhibited problematic behaviors at school. While still enrolled in the high school’s regular education program, she began to receive additional remedial support services. A.N.H.’s parents and the high school staff collaborated regarding the decision. 

Later in her freshman year of high school, A.N.H. was tentatively diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed medications for both depression and mood disorder.  A.N.H.’s parents requested an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) from the Committee on Special Education (CSE), which is responsible for creating IEP’s under New York State law. The CSE committee recommended additional educational supports for A.N.H. and changed her school schedule to split time between the high school and a children’s center. 

A.N.H.’s parents disagreed with the CSE’s recommendations and believed they were deficient, based on their daughter’s mental health classifications of bipolar and mood disorder.  Based on this disagreement with the Oneonta school district, A.N.H.’s parents unilaterally enrolled her in a private boarding school without giving the public high school any notice. Based on this unilateral placement to a private boarding school, A.N.H.’s parents requested tuition reimbursement from the public school district for their daughter under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In two mediation hearings before an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO), the district argued that A.N.H.’s private school placement was inappropriate because at least some of the private school’s teachers were not certified. The IHO determined that A.N.H. was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA and A.N.H.’s private school placement was appropriate and the district was ordered to reimburse her private school tuition.

The district appealed the IHO’s decision to the State Review Officer (SRO), who reversed the IHO’s decision, concluding that the district did not deny the student FAPE because the private school placement were inappropriate based on A.N.H.’s specific educational needs under the stated disability criteria of the IDEA.  

The federal district court ruled in favor the parents.  

Issue:  When there are conflicting Impartial Hearing Officer (IFO) and State Review Officer (SRO) opinions, which is given greater legal deference in IDEA-related disputes?  

Legal Principles: IDEA has a very intentional framework that allows for a detailed process to settle disputes between families and schools. While that allows for a thorough examination of issues, it sometimes results in conflicting opinions among administrative entities. Here, the impartial hearing officer and the state review officer had differing opinions. It is up to the court to sort them out.

Outcome: The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court’s ruling granting private school tuition reimbursement to the parents of an emotionally disturbed high school student under the IDEA.  The Second Circuit ruled that greater legal deference should have been given to the State Review Officer’s (SRO’s) determination that the unilateral private school placement was inappropriate, especially because A.N.H. did not improve academically while attending the private boarding school. 

The Second Circuit stated that,,“[w]hen an IHO and SRO reach conflicting conclusions, we defer to the final decision of the state authorities, that is, the SRO’s decision.” Since the SRO’s determination was that the plaintiff parents did not meet the legal obligation of demonstrating the appropriateness of their daughter’s private school placement, A.N.H.’s parents cannot be reimbursed tuition for the period of time their daughter was enrolled. 

Lessons for Principals and Teachers:

•  Special education-related legal disputes strongly encourage mediation and dispute resolution in lieu of costly and timely court-based litigation.

•  When seeking private school reimbursement under the IDEA, the legal burden of proof is generally upon the student’s parents to demonstrate the appropriateness of the private school placement.

2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Hardison v. Board of Education of the Oneonta City School District, No. 13-1594-CV (2nd Cir. 2014).

Federal Special Education Law(s)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400.

_{Note: This information is not intended as legal advice. Federal and other court decisions can differ depending on what region of the country you live in. State laws also weigh in on certain issues. All cases are for educational purposes only, and meant to demonstrate how courts or administrative agencies have acted in specific instances as well as to provide information that can bolster the overall legal literacy of teachers and administrators. Local school attorneys can provide more detail about local law.}