Cerra v. Pawling Central School District: How IDEA Shapes IEP Requirements

Introduction

This post is a part of our ongoing blog series exploring significant Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) cases. Today, we’ll look into Cerra v. Pawling Central School District (2005). This case provides essential insights into how the Second Circuit interprets the requirements under the IDEA, particularly concerning the adequacy of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). If you’re new to this series, consider reading our original post which links to posts about the foundational IDEA decisions, like Rowley and Endrew F., which set important legal standards.

Cerra v. Pawling Central School District (2005) – The Background

The Cerra case arose when the parents of a child with a disability disputed the adequacy of their child’s IEP. Under IDEA, public schools must provide children with disabilities a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The parents argued that the school’s IEP failed to address their child’s unique educational needs and sought reimbursement for private school tuition.

Continue reading →

Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District: Clarifying Educational Benefits Under IDEA

Introduction: Positioning Walczak in IDEA Case History

In our ongoing series on landmark IDEA cases, we’ve explored foundational rulings such as Board of Education v. Rowley and Endrew F. v. Douglas County. Today, we turn to another influential case: the Walczak IDEA decision (Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 1998). This Second Circuit case clarified the educational benefit standard schools must meet under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It bridges the foundational principles established by Rowley with the evolving expectations highlighted in Endrew F.

Continue reading →

Endrew F. v. Douglas County: Raising the Bar for Special Education under IDEA

Introduction

As part of our ongoing series looking into key judicial decisions shaping special education law, we previously discussed foundational IDEA cases, including our initial overview, Understanding IDEA: An Introduction to Special Education Law, and Board of Education v. Rowley. Today, we explore another significant advancement through the Endrew F. Supreme Court IDEA decision (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017). This case clarified and raised expectations for providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), redefining how schools approach educational planning for students with disabilities in the Second Circuit and nationwide.

Continue reading →

Understanding FAPE: The Landmark Rowley Supreme Court Decision

Introduction

In our previous post, Understanding IDEA: An Introduction to Special Education Law, we introduced the fundamental principles of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Today, we’re diving deeper into one of the most influential Supreme Court cases interpreting IDEA: the Rowley Supreme Court IDEA decision (Board of Education v. Rowley, 1982). This landmark case shaped the standard for what constitutes a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and continues to guide special education law in the Second Circuit and nationwide.

Continue reading →

Understanding IDEA: An Introduction to Special Education Law

If you’re a parent, educator, or advocate involved in special education, you’ve likely heard of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Enacted in 1975 and significantly revised in 1990, IDEA ensures that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) tailored to their individual needs. But what exactly does this mean in practice, and how have courts shaped its interpretation?

IDEA provides essential protections and services to students, empowering families and educators to collaborate effectively. However, navigating its complexities can be challenging. Judicial decisions, especially those from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals, continuously influence how IDEA is implemented, directly impacting educational rights and services.

In this blog series, we’ll examine key Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions that have profoundly influenced special education law. We’ll begin by focusing on cases from the Second Circuit, as I live and practice in New York City, which falls within this jurisdiction.

Each post will highlight crucial cases, summarize essential legal principles, and explain their practical implications for students, families, and schools.

Continue reading →

Case Review: How Should I Justify My Service Provider’s Enhanced Rates?

Introduction

Many parents rely on private special education service providers when their school district fails to deliver the services their child needs, or even those that are mandated on their IEP. However, when seeking reimbursement or direct funding for private services, the district may argue that the rates charged by private providers are too high. Any rate above the extremely low rates that the NYC DOE pays providers is considered an “enhanced rate.” But how are parents supposed to justify “enhanced rates” at an impartial hearing?

A recent State Review Officer (SRO) decision (24-218) issued in July 2024 helps explain this issue. The case involved a parent who sought reimbursement for Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS) provided by EdZone, LLC at a rate of $198 per hour. The New York City Department of Education (DOE) challenged this rate, arguing that it was excessive. The SRO ultimately ruled in favor of the parent, requiring the DOE to fully reimburse the $198/hour rate.

This case highlights key takeaways on how parents can justify enhanced provider rates when school districts refuse to fund them.

Continue reading →

Case Review: A Family’s Journey to Tuition Reimbursement

When advocating for your child with special needs, the process can feel overwhelming. This blog post highlights one family’s experience in seeking tuition reimbursement for their child’s placement at the Shefa School in New York City for the 2023-2024 school year. It walks through the arguments made, what the impartial hearing officer (IHO) decided, what the State Review Officer (SRO) decided on appeal, and the lessons parents can learn to strengthen their own cases.

This blog draws on the decision issued by the New York State Review Office in appeal number 24-153. While I was not involved in the case, I regularly review these publicly available decisions as they serve as a valuable resource for understanding the nuances of special education disputes. You can access the full decision by clicking here. This case sheds light on one family’s journey and provides helpful context for others facing similar challenges. Please note that the outcome of this appeal is specific to its circumstances and should be viewed as informational rather than a guarantee of similar results.

Continue reading →

What Is an Impartial Hearing? A Guide for Parents of Students with Special Needs

If you’re a parent of a child with special needs, you may have heard the term “impartial hearing” mentioned by your child’s school, another parent, or a professional. But what does it actually mean? Understanding impartial hearings is a critical step in advocating for your child’s education, especially when things aren’t going as planned.

What Is an Impartial Hearing?

An impartial hearing is a legal process designed to resolve disputes between parents and school districts regarding a child’s education. If your child isn’t receiving the services outlined in their Individualized Education Program (IEP) or if the school’s program isn’t meeting their needs, you have the right to request an impartial hearing to address and resolve these issues. Think of it as a way to ensure your child’s educational rights are protected under the law.

Continue reading →