Wrightslaw l No Child Left Behind l IDEA 2004 l Fetaweb l Yellow Pages for Kids l Harbor House Law Press
 Home > News > Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Argument in New York City Bd of Ed v. Tom F. on October 1, 2007

The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Programs

Oct 23 - Wilton, CT

Oct 25 - Olympia, WA

Oct 30 - Phoenix, AZ

Nov 6 - McAllen, TX

Nov 18 - DesMoines, IA

Nov 21 - Temecula, CA

Dec 4 - OKC, OK

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Jason at Ft. Benning
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Summer School Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
ISEA
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in
NYC Bd of Education v. Tom F.
on October 1, 2007

Summary
l Question Presented l Significance
Briefs
l News

Print this page

U.S. Supreme Court
Do All Children with Disabilities Have a Right to a Free Appropriate Public Education?


On Monday, October 1, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child.

The Court will decide whether all children with disabilities, including those who attend private schools, are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
The decision will have significant implications for parents, school districts, and children with disabilities who receive special education services.

In the 30 years after the special education law was enacted, the high court heard a handful of special education cases. The most critical are Rowley (1982), Burlington (1985),  Honig v. Doe (1988), Florence County v. Shannon Carter (1993), and Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. (1999)

In 2005, that trend changed. The Court issued decisions in Schaffer v. Weast (2005), Arlington v. Murphy (2006), and Winkelman v. Parma Sch. District (2007), with a decision in New York City Bd of Education v. Tom F. due by the end of the 2007-2008 term.

Summary of the NYC Bd of Ed. v. Tom F. Case

In New York City v. Tom F., Tom placed his son Gilbert in a private special education school because the school district was unable to provide an appropriate program. For two years, the school district reimbursed the parent for the private school tuition. Later, the school district developed an IEP that placed the child in a special education class in a public school.

Convinced that the proposed program and placement did not provide his child with a free appropriate education, the parent continued his son's education in the private school. He requested a special education due process hearing to challenge the school district's IEP and to request tuition reimbursement for the private school.

An impartial hearing officer found that the school district did not offer an appropriate program and granted the parent's request for tuition reimbursement. The hearing officer found that the parent “did everything asked of him . . . in regard to this matter.” The school district appealed. A state review officer affirmed the hearing officer's decision.

The school district appealed to U.S. District Court. The U. S. District court reversed the decisions of the impartial hearing officer and state review officer, and held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not require a school district to reimburse a parent if the child has never been enrolled in public school.

The relevant statute reads:

(ii) Reimbursement for Private School Placement. If the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private elementary or secondary school without the consent or or rferal by the public agency, a court of a hearing officer may require the agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of that enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment." 20 U.S.C 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) (page 74 in Wrightslaw, Special Education Law, 2nd Edition)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the decision "in light of this Court's decision in Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 14 No. 04-4981, --- F.3d ---, 2006." The Second Circuit held that the IDEA was not meant to deny reimbursement to students who have never been enrolled in public school. To rule otherwise would be to require parents to enroll children in inappropriate public school programs before they could be eligible for tuition reimbursement.

On February 26, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child.

On Monday, October 1, 2007, the first day of the new term, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in New York City Bd of Ed. v. Tom F.

Tom F. and his son Gilbert are represented by Paul G. Gardephe, Esq., Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. The New York City Board of Education is represented by Leonard J. Koerner, Esq., Corporation Counsel for the City of New York.


To Top

Question Presented

"Does the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stating that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permits tuition reimbursement where a child has not previously received special education from a public agency, stand in direct contradiction to the plain language of 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) which authorizes tuition reimbursement to the parents of a disabled child “who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency”? Link

To Top

Significance of NYC v. Tom F.

In New York City Bd of Ed. v. Tom F., the Supreme Court will determine if a child will be forced to "try" an inappropriate placement before the parents can remove the child to an appropriate placement and seek reimbursement.

If the Supreme Court affirms the decision by the Second Circuit, parents will have the right to obtain reimbursement from the public school even if the child was never enrolled in a public school special education program.

Parents will still be required to show that the district's proposed program was inappropriate and that the private special education program they chose is appropriate, consistent with the established tuition reimbursement remedy authorized by the IDEA and the Supreme Court's decisions in Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) and School Committee of Burlington, Mass v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).

If the Supreme Court reverses the Second Circuit, parents will have two choices:
they can place their child in an appropriate private program and forfeit any chance to obtain reimbursement, or they can place their child into an inappropriate public school program so they can later remove the child from that program and seek reimbursement.

Briefs Filed

The parties have filed briefs in support of their positions for the Court's consideration.

Parent's Brief http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.parent.brief1.initial.pdf

School District's Brief http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.nyc.brief1.initial.pdf

Amicus Briefs Filed

Amici curiae ("friends of the court") have filed briefs in 
New York City Bd of Ed. v. Tom F. Amicus briefs provide additional information on specific areas of law or other aspects of the case to assist the Court in the decision-making process.


Briefs in Support of Tom F. and Gilbert F.

Amicus briefs have been filed in support of Tom F. and Gilbert F. by:

The Solicitor General of the United States http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.solgen.pdf

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates and New Jersey Special Education Practitioners
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.copaa.pdf

The National Disability Rights Network (formerly Protection and Advocacy) and the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.ndrn.pdf

The International Dyslexia Association, NAMI, Mental Health America, and The Bazelon Center
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.ida.pdf

Autism Speaks
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.autspks.pdf

Briefs in support of New York City Board of Education

Amicus briefs have been filed in support of New York City Board of Education by:

The National School Board Association
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.nsba.pdf

Great City Schools
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.greatcities.pdf

New York State School Boards Association
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/tomf.amicus.nyscba.pdf

U.S. Conference of Mayors, et al. (requested, not received)

To Top

News

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in
NYC Board of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child on Monday, October 1, 2007. Article includes background of case, issues to be decided, significance, links to briefs filed on behalf of Tom and Gilbert F. and NYC Bd of Ed., news. (08/08/07)

A Short History of New York Bd of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F. describes key events in case, from Gilbert's entry into Kindergarten in 1996 to the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert in February 2007 and the scheduling of oral argument for Monday, October 1, 2007. (08/12/07)

City To Battle at High Court Over Special Education by Joseph Goldstein, The New York Sun. "The federal government is siding against New York City in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that parents of children with disabilities are watching closely . . ." (07/20/07)

Fighting Propaganda Over Tom F. With Facts. Text of letter to The New York Times from attorney Selene Almazon, past president of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), about one-sided, biased media coverage of the case based on false perceptions. (from Special Education Law Blog, 04/11/07)

U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari in New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child. (02/26/07)



To Top

Created: 08/12/07
Revised: 08/14/07



Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

 

Copyright 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map

What's New!

Now Shipping!

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Check it out!

Wrightslaw Store

The Advocate's Store

Get Help!

Blog the Wrightslaw

Wrightslaw on Facebook

Find us on Facebook

Wrightslaw Books

Student Discounts

Military Discounts


Wrightslaw: All About IEPs

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book
To Order


About the Book

To Order


Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board

About the DVD Video
To Order


To Order


Wrightslaw: No Child Left Behind

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw Multimedia Training


Understanding Your Child's
Test Scores (1.5 hrs)

Understanding Your Child's Test Scores

Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $
24.95
Wrightslaw Special: $14.95

Special Education Law & Advocacy Training
(6.5 hrs)


Wrightslaw WebEx Special Education Law & Training Program (6.5 hrs)


Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $99.95
Wrightslaw Special: $49.95