Board of Education v. Kain, 18 N.Y.3d 291 (2011)
Under New York Education Law, a school district may be required to provide an individual aide to a student with disabilities at their private school if the student’s individual educational needs necessitate it for them to receive a free appropriate public education.
Summary
This case concerns a student with ADHD attending a private school within the Bay Shore Union Free School District. The student’s IEP recommended a classroom aide. The school district refused to provide the aide at the private school, arguing it was only obligated to provide such services at public schools. The Court of Appeals held that the school district was required to provide the aide at the private school because the student’s educational needs dictated that the services be provided there to ensure a free appropriate public education, and that the aide constituted a covered “service” under the relevant statute.
Facts
A student with ADHD attended St. Patrick School, a private school within the Bay Shore Union Free School District. The School District’s Committee on Special Education established an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the student, recommending 40 minutes a day in a resource room and a one-on-one classroom aide for three hours daily during academic classes. The aide was recommended to refocus the student and keep him on task. The school district agreed the student should receive the recommended services but disagreed as to whether those services should be provided at the student’s private school or at a Bay Shore public school.
Procedural History
The parents sought a hearing before an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) after the School District refused to provide the aide at the child’s private school. The IHO determined the aide should be provided at the private school. The State Review Officer (SRO) agreed. The School District brought an action in federal court, which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The School District then commenced a proceeding to vacate the determination of the SRO. Supreme Court denied the petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the School District is required to provide the student with an individual aide at his nonpublic school.
2. Whether an individual aide falls within the definition of “services” under Education Law § 3602-c.
Holding
1. Yes, because the educational needs of this particular student required the aide to be present at the private school in order to provide a free and appropriate public education.
2. Yes, because the broad statutory language defining services was intended to include a wide range of educational resources for students with disabilities, and the aide facilitates the child’s education and provides services related to instruction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on Board of Educ. of Monroe-Woodbury Cent. School Dist. v Wieder, which held that the dual enrollment statute (Education Law § 3602-c) requires neither that educational services be provided at a student’s nonpublic school nor that they be provided at the public school. Instead, the determination should be based on the child’s “individual educational needs in the least restrictive environment.” In this case, both the IHO and the SRO found that the student required the aide at his private school to receive a free appropriate public education. The court stated, “The fallacy of the School District’s position is that it advocates for the student, under the tutelage of an aide, to be kept focused and on task at a site removed from his own teacher and classmates, and indeed, from his regular school.”
Regarding the definition of