1. Burlington School Committee Vs. DOE (Massachusetts) (1985) By: Gregory Renner

2. Background The case involved a family of a third grade IEP student and the Burlington (Massachusetts) School District. The family, believing their child’s learning disabilities stemmed from neurological issues, disagreed with the level of services the town of Burlington proposed in the child’s IEP. The town offered only limited IEP accommodations maintaining the child was instead suffering from emotional issues and that additional accommodations were unnecessary.

3. Background Cont..... The dispute between the two parties continued throughout the school year all the while the child was struggling under the town’s accommodations outlined in their IEP plan. Amidst the prolonged debates on the merits of the IEP, the family opted to remove the child from the public school and place him in a private school that better addressed his specific needs. The family then sought reimbursement from the town for the cost of the private school fees citing that the town had not provided the child with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

4. Issues The town refused to reimburse the costs for the child to attend a private school asserting that their IEP was the appropriate education plan and that the family abandoned the due process hearings by removing the child from the public school and thus waived their right to any reimbursement. The precedent was for the child to remain in the public school through the duration of the review. The family disagreed that due process had been followed because the hearings lasted through and beyond the school year.

5. Plaintiff's Argument The child was not being given FAPE They should be reimbursed since the public school was not able to provide FAPE for the child.

6. Defendant's Argument The current IRP for the student was fine. The parents removed the child before Due process and are therefore not entitled to a refund for their child's private education.

7. Verdict Supreme Court Rules in favor of the DOE The six year case went through a number of hearings, decisions and appeals at the local and state courts before ultimately arriving before the United States Supreme Court in 1985. The Supreme Court contested that “if the school officials disagree with the need for special education or the adequacy of the public school's program to meet the child's needs, it is unlikely they will agree to an interim private school placement while the review process runs its course, thus the parents are forced to leave the child in what may turn out to be an inappropriate educational placement or to obtain the appropriate placement only by sacrificing any claim for reimbursement”.

8. Verdict Cont.... The Court’s unanimous decision was that a public agency is not responsible for requests of reimbursement if the free education plan is in fact considered to be the appropriate education plan and that a family can seek reimbursement for interim private schooling if the proposed education plan is deemed inadequate for the child's specific needs. The Court also reinforced that due process procedures must be followed by all parties to ensure a quick and prompt resolution to the review hearings for the good of the child.

9. References Amar, V. D. (n.d.). 655 F.2d 428: Town of Burlington and the School Committee of the Town Ofburlington, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. the Department of Education of the Commonwealth Ofmassachusetts and John Doe, As He is the Fatherand Next Friend of John Doe, Jr.,defendants, Ap. US Law, Case Law, Codes, Statutes & Regulations :: Justia Law. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/655/428/65221/ Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education. (n.d.). SPED WikiSpace. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from sped637- su2011.wikispaces.com/Burlington+School+Committee+v.+Departmen t+of+Education Burlington School Committee v. Dept Ed., 471 U. S. 359 (1985). (n.d.). Wrightslaw Special Education Law and Advocacy. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.burlington.htm