In M.T. v. Arlington Central School District, No. 22-CV-00437, 2022 WL 16857176, 122 LRP 44670 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2022), the court addressed the difficult task faced by impartial hearing officers in fashioning compensatory education awards. The decision also examined how equities should be weighed in determining remedies and reaffirmed the obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student with complex needs.
The case involved a student classified as having an Other Health Impairment, with diagnoses of autism and ADHD. Testimony established that the student demonstrated high cognitive functioning but significant behavioral challenges. The relevant period at issue spanned March 14, 2018, through June 30, 2020.
The parents sought compensatory education for the period from March 2018 through June 2019 in the form of one year of tuition at a private school in which they enrolled the student in August 2019. They also sought tuition reimbursement for the student’s private placement during the 2019–20 school year.
The impartial hearing officer denied the parents’ claims. On appeal, however, the state review officer determined that the district denied the student FAPE from March 14, 2018, through June 30, 2019, based on the district’s failure to conduct a functional behavioral assessment, develop a behavior intervention plan, and maintain the student in the then-current educational placement. By the time the matter reached federal court, the district no longer disputed that it had denied FAPE during this period.
The state review officer concluded that a year of private school tuition was not an appropriate form of compensatory education for the FAPE denial. The district court reversed this aspect of the decision, holding that even if the SRO was correct in rejecting the parents’ requested remedy, the SRO erred by failing to consider whether some other compensatory remedy was warranted. The court cited Second Circuit precedent emphasizing that “in enacting the IDEA, Congress did not intend to create a right without a remedy.” Streck v. Board of Education of the East Greenbush Central School District, 408 F. App’x 411, 415 (2d Cir. 2010). 2022 WL 16857176, at *7.
The court further found that the SRO did not adequately support its conclusion that the equities weighed against awarding compensatory relief. The court observed that the parents’ decisions appeared to have been made in the student’s best interests and that any delays in completing evaluations were largely attributable to the district’s conduct. Id. at *9. Although the student’s behavioral challenges interfered with academic progress, the court noted that such challenges could be addressed through appropriately tailored compensatory education services. The court therefore remanded the matter to the IHO to supplement the record and determine an appropriate compensatory award.
The remaining issue concerned the parents’ request for tuition reimbursement for the private placement during the 2019–20 school year. The district had recommended placement in the Ulster BOCES Autism Program for Independent Education (“APIE”). The court upheld the SRO’s determination that the APIE program was appropriate, rejecting the parents’ arguments that: (1) the class composition was overly diverse, as the evidence supported the program’s benefits despite variability among students; (2) the program lacked peer-reviewed research support, which the court found insufficient to establish an FAPE violation; and (3) the program failed to meet the student’s behavioral and executive functioning needs, an issue on which the SRO’s determination was entitled to deference.
The case is significant for its guidance on compensatory education. It makes clear that when a hearing officer or reviewing officer determines that a parent’s preferred compensatory remedy is inappropriate, the inquiry does not end there. Rather, IHOs have an obligation to consider and, where appropriate, award an alternative compensatory remedy supported by the record.