lawprofessors

By  Michelle Ball , California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision Anchorage School District v. M.P. (July 19, 2012, No. 10-36065), the Court ruled that the lack of an updated annual IEP (Individualized Education Program) plan resulted in M.P. (student) not receiving a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE).  The Court also ruled that the parents were to receive reimbursement for private tutoring and attorneys fees. In  Anchorage, Judge Paez stated that a school district has only two options if the annual IEP remains unsigned (e.g. a parent wants more changes, rejects it, etc.). The District must then either: 1)  Continue working with the parents to develop an IEP which is accepted by all, OR 2)  Revise the IEP on their own and file a due process hearing to seek administrative approval of the proposed IEP. This is significant.  There are many times that parents have a signed IEP, e.g. fr...

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of California's decision in CB v. Garden Grove Unified School District (2009).  This case (hereinafter "Garden Grove") addresses the issue of parent reimbursement for placement of a special education student at a non-public agency.  The affirmation solidified further the rights of parents to be repaid when a public school district  does not offer a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). It is yet to be seen whether this decision will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but for now, Garden Grove stands for/reconfirms the following propositions: 1)  If a District fails to provide FAPE, full reimbursement may be sought by the parents. 2) Such reimbursement may be sought even if the parents place a student with a non-public agency, rather than a non-public school. 3)  Th...

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Court"), the court which has jurisdiction over federal matters in California, Oregon, Washington, and several other states issued a decision in Lake Washington School District v. Office of Superintendent ( http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/22/09-35472.pdf ).  This decision defeated the Lake Washington School District's hope of pursuing a matter under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001400----000-.html , as the Court determined that the District was not granted "standing" (ability to sue) under IDEA.  The Court thus shut down Lake Washington's action which attempted to limit postponements of special education hearings (aka due process hearings). The decision also includes important discussion regarding just WHO has a right of action under I...