Bd+of+Ed+of+City+of+New+York+v.+Tom+F

U.S. Code||
 * Case || The Board of Education of the City of New York v Tom F. ||

FACTS: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) requires that state and local school systems obtain federal funding to provide for a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) through individual education programs (“IEP”) developed by the school system. IDEA was reauthorized by Congress in 1997. The reauthorization includes an amendment that says that a parent of a disabled child “who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency” enrolls that child in private school without the agency’s consent or referral, a court or hearing officer may order the agency to reimburse the parent for tuition costs in the event that the agency failed to make a “free appropriate public education available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment.” Tom F. is father to Gilbert F. Tom enrolled his son in Gaynor, a private school. In 1997, the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York determined that Gilbert was learning disabled, and in the following two years conducted annual reviews of Gilbert’s educational process. Tom F. rejected the annual IEPs issued by the Board. Following both the 1997 and 1998 reviews, Tom F. sued the Board for tuition reimbursement based on alleged procedural errors and twice settled for the full yearly cost of Gilbert’s tuition at Gaynor. On June 23, 1999, the CSE conducted its annual review of Gilbert’s placement for the coming school year. The CSE recommending Gilbert’s continued classification as learning disabled, a specific Modified Instructional Services program, and placement at P.S. 871, a public school. Tom F. disagreed with placing Gilbert at P.S. 871 and continued to send him the Gaynor. Tom F. also requested an impartial hearing for reimbursement of tuition. The Impartial Hearing Officer ordered the board to pay the requested tuition. The board appealed, arguing that IDEA’s plain language precludes reimbursement where the student had not previously received special education under a public agency’s authority. The board appealed to a State Review Officer, who affirmed the decision of the Impartial Hearing Officer. The board further appealed, and district court agreed with the interpretation of the board and reversed the decision from the impartial hearing. The U.S. Court of appeals overturned the ruling of the district court.
 * Date || 2007 ||
 * Citation || 522 U.S.___(2007) ||
 * Outcome || The court decided in favor of Tom F. Affirming the Court of appeals in reasoning by comparing the disputed section of the act with other sections that IDEA was not intended to deny reimbursement for students never enrolled in public school. The court held that upholding the district court ruling would require parents to enroll their children in inadequate public schools as a condition of eligibility for tuition reimbursement. ||
 * Story ||
 * ISSUE: Do all children with disabilities—regardless of whether they attend public or private school—have the right to a [|free appropriate public education] (FAPE)?** ||



Landmark Cases ||
 * Link(s) || Story