A Step-by-Step Overview of Tuition Reimbursement under the IDEA

Autor/in	Zirkel, Perry A.
Titel	A Step-by-Step Overview of Tuition Reimbursement under the IDEA
Quelle	In: Journal of Special Education Leadership, 34 (2021) 2, S.94-99 (6 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1525-1810
Schlagwörter	Tuition; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Equal Education; Students with Disabilities; Court Litigation; Access to Education; Special Education; Hearings; Student Placement; Individualized Education Programs; Costs; Private Schools; Public Schools + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Unterweisung; Unterricht; Bundesrecht; Bildungsrecht; Schulgesetz; Student; Students; Disability; Disabilities; Schüler; Schülerin; Studentin; Behinderung; Rechtsstreit; Education; Access; Bildung; Zugang; Bildungszugang; Special needs education; Sonderpädagogik; Sonderschulwesen; Schülerpraktikum; Individualized education program; Individualisierendes Lernen; Cost; Kosten; Private school; Privatschule; Public school; Öffentliche Schule
Abstract	The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) continues to account for an expansive and expensive segment of education litigation. The most longstanding remedy under the IDEA is tuition reimbursement, interpreted broadly to include not only private school tuition, but also related transportation and stand-alone related services. Probably because it represents such a high-stakes risk to both parents and school districts, this remedy accounts for: (a) three Supreme Court cases, which is more than that for the central obligation of a free appropriate public education (FAPE); and (b) specialized provisions in the IDEA. More specifically, the Supreme Court established the general multistep framework in "School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts" (1985) and "Florence County School District Four v. Carter" (1993); Congress then added codified refinements in the 1997 amendments of the IDEA; and, more recently, the Supreme Court interpreted part of this codified language in "Forest Grove School District v. T.A." (2009). Finally, a continuing multitude of lower court decisions have filled the gaps with varying further interpretations. Rather than summarizing each of these successive sources of law, this article provides a systematic synthesis of the applicable adjudicative steps in the form of a yes-no checklist. Each step starts with a question followed by a relatively concise explanation, along with a few lower court rulings that illustrate its prevailing or varying applications. (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Council of Administrators of Special Education. 1675 East Seminole Street Suite L1, Springfield, MO 65804. Tel: 417-427-7720; Fax: 417-427-6520; e-mail: office@casecec.org; Web site: https://www.casecec.org/journal
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01