Considerations Related to Alternative Educational Placement and Tuition Reimbursement Under IDEA

Amy L. Wevodau; Lauren C. Miller

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Dictates That All Youth be Provided With Access to an Appropriate Education That Meets Their Unique Educational Needs

In Hardison v. Board of Education of the Oneonta City School District, 773 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2014), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a determination by the State Review Officer (SRO) denying the parents of A.N.H., an emotionally disabled child, reimbursement for the costs of her private schooling under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court of appeals held that the district court should have shown greater deference to the SRO's determinations with respect to the appropriateness of the child's placement at a particular private school. Because the Hardisons failed to demonstrate the appropriateness of A.N.H.'s private placement, they were not entitled to compensation for tuition costs.

Facts of the Case

Under the IDEA, states receiving federal funding are required to provide all children with disabilities with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), including special-education services that meet the youth's unique educational needs. The IDEA also requires schools to prepare individualized education plans (IEPs) for disabled students that reflect the child's current academic performance, goals, and the services provided to support attainment of these goals. According to New York state regulations, parents who believe that their child is not being provided a FAPE may unilaterally enroll the child in private school and seek tuition reimbursement from the district. Considerations for reimbursement are based on determinations regarding whether the proposed IEP failed to provide a FAPE and if the private placement was appropriate for the child's needs. State law requires the school district to prove that the proposed IEP provides a FAPE and the parents to prove the appropriateness of the private placement.

The Hardisons adopted A.N.H. as an infant. As a child, she exhibited some oppositional behavior and was briefly treated for depression, but was generally successful in a regular academic program through middle school. Upon entering Oneonta High School, her performance declined, and she began to exhibit problematic behavior. She initially remained in a regular education program with remedial and support services while simultaneously beginning psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder. As a result of her academic difficulties, she underwent an evaluation conducted by her school district, the results of which highlighted the contributions of impairments in cognitive, attentional, and emotional functioning in her academic struggles. As a result of ongoing academic and behavioral difficulties, the Hardisons withdrew A.N.H from school. She subsequently underwent another evaluation by an outside provider, the results of which did not indicate the presence of a learning disability.

The following year, A.N.H. returned to Oneonta High School to repeat ninth grade. Early in the year she was psychiatrically hospitalized on two occasions. She was evaluated during both hospitalizations, but on neither occasion did evaluators note recommendations regarding her academic programming upon return to school. Rather, it was noted only that she would “continue to benefit from the emotional and academic supports present in her academic program” (Hardison, p 378). Upon returning from her second hospitalization, A.N.H. enrolled in an alternative education program, the Bugbee Program, where she continued to struggle academically, leading to an evaluation for an IEP. The evaluator noted average scores on intelligence and achievement tests, but opined that “mental health factors appear[ed] to be causing a significant disruption in [A.N.H's] life within school” (Hardison, p 378). Following this evaluation, accommodations were made to support A.N.H.'s limited return to Oneonta High School, but no official IEP was enacted. After three days, it was determined that she was not faring well at Bugbee, and she returned to Oneonta. Based on her limited improvement at Bugbee, the Hardisons sought alternative placement at the Family Foundation School, a therapeutic boarding school. There, A.N.H. received academic support and therapy services; however, the latter were not provided by staff licensed according to state requirements. Her grades improved somewhat, but she continued to struggle academically. During her first year of enrollment, the Hardisons paid tuition.

Prior to A.N.H.'s second year at Family Foundation, the Hardisons requested tuition assistance from the district. Their request was refused on the grounds that the district did not classify A.N.H. as disabled and that Family Foundation was not an approved special-education institution. The Hardisons then requested special-education services through a public school near Family Foundation, requiring A.N.H. to undergo evaluation. She was subsequently classified as a student with emotional disturbance; however, her academic difficulties were attributed to “a lack of effort and attention to details” (Hardison, p 381). An IEP was created but never implemented. After this evaluation, the Hardisons filed a complaint against the Oneonta District, arguing that A.N.H. had been denied a FAPE and requesting that she be classified as disabled. Oneonta granted the request, and an IEP was created. Placement in a day treatment program was recommended; however, the district did not provide a specific referral and later disagreed when the Hardisons sought continued placement at Family Foundation.

During a subsequent hearing before the Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO), the Hardisons called only one witness from Family Foundation. That testimony highlighted the lack of special-education services at the facility and the minimal integration among interventions for A.N.H.'s educational and mental health needs. The IHO found that the district had denied A.N.H. a FAPE and ordered payment for portions of A.N.H.'s tuition costs. The district appealed the IHO's decision to the SRO, who overturned much of the decision, finding that A.N.H. had not been completely deprived of a FAPE, as she was not classified as disabled during a portion of the time in question. However, the district's failure to provide a referral for a day-treatment program constituted denial of a FAPE. The SRO also found that the Hardisons had failed to demonstrate the appropriateness of A.N.H.'s placement at Family Foundation, based on the limited information presented regarding how the school met her educational needs.

The Hardisons filed an action in district court challenging the SRO's decision. This ruling was based on the same record before the SRO. The district court found that Family Foundation was an appropriate placement and ordered a partial tuition reimbursement. Departure from the SRO's holding was based on the court's contention that the SRO's consideration of Family Foundation as a special-education school was erroneous, that testimony from Family Foundation staff was incorrectly weighted, and that the SRO misread information in A.N.H.'s IEP.

Ruling and Reasoning

The court of appeals held that the district court should have paid deference to the findings of the administrative judges, given their greater familiarity with the workings of the IDEA. Given that the IHO and SRO reached different conclusions, the court of appeals felt that deference to the SRO's decision was appropriate. The court agreed that the Hardisons failed to demonstrate that A.N.H.'s placement was appropriate for two reasons: they failed to provide “objective evidence” of her progress at Family Foundation, relying solely on the subjective report of one staff person who was unfamiliar with all aspects of A.N.H.'s service package, and they failed to connect her progress in psychological treatments to her academic progress, a critical concern for IEP determinations. Because they did not demonstrate the appropriateness of the placement, the Hardisons were not entitled to tuition reimbursement.

Discussion

The IDEA has conceptualized disability to include not only cognitive and learning impairments but also serious emotional disturbance. Although the Oneonta School District initially contested A.N.H.'s classification as disabled, this case did not hinge on classification. There was little debate regarding whether A.N.H. qualified for services, as there were clear indications of academic impairment secondary to psychological and behavioral symptoms. The crux of this case hangs on the question of responsibility: if parents reject placements offered by the district in favor of a private placement to receive tuition reimbursement, they carry the burden of showing the court why their identified placement uniquely meets the needs of the child. To make such a representation, parents should be prepared to demonstrate, via documentation and witnesses, the direct connection between interventions provided by the preferred placement and the youth's academic progress. Although youth with complex emotional and behavioral disturbances may require interventions outside of the traditional purview of academic institutions, such interventions must nonetheless be linked to improvements in academic functioning. Questions such as, “What aspects of the Family Foundations environment allowed A.N.H. to learn best?” likely remained unanswered in the eyes of key decision-makers, affecting their ultimate determination regarding the appropriateness of the placement.

The present case also speaks to the need for collaboration and communication among key stakeholders involved in the implementation of special-education services for youth with emotional disabilities. Youth with complex emotional and educational needs are likely to require multifaceted interventions involving integrated systems of care. To be successful, this requires cross-system communication, including ongoing collaboration involving a child's parents, educators, and community placements and services. Improved communication between stakeholders and use of more collaborative education planning approaches throughout this process could have circumvented some of the ensuing conflict regarding the most appropriate placement for A.N.H. Such practices may have included enhanced IEP facilitation, external mediation, or both, designed to fuel quicker resolutions amenable to all involved parties.