## Facts

- S.K. was a child with severe autism and major delays in expressive and receptive language.
- During early intervention and preschool, S.K. received intensive services, including home-based applied behavioral analysis (ABA), frequent one-to-one speech therapy, occupational therapy, and placement in a small special class.
- The record showed S.K. made significant educational and behavioral progress under the preschool program.
- For kindergarten (2008–2009), the public-school IEP reduced supports by eliminating home-based ABA, substantially reducing individual speech therapy in favor of group services, and omitting parent training.
- The parents obtained an independent evaluation and offered professional testimony that S.K. required continued intensive one-to-one ABA and speech therapy and parent training to maintain and extend progress.
- The parents unilaterally placed S.K. at Manhattan Children’s Center (MCC), a private autism program providing intensive ABA and related services, and sought tuition reimbursement under IDEA.
- After an impartial hearing, the IHO found the public IEP denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and ordered reimbursement; the SRO reversed; the parents sought judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed kindergarten IEP was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and thus provided FAPE under IDEA.
2. If FAPE was denied, whether MCC was an appropriate unilateral private placement.
3. Whether equitable considerations favored tuition reimbursement.
4. What level of deference was due to the SRO versus the IHO where the administrative findings conflicted.

## Decision

- The court granted the parents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the Department’s cross-motion.
- The court held the kindergarten IEP failed to provide FAPE because the substantial reduction in individualized ABA and speech services and the absence of parent training were not supported by record evidence that S.K. would receive comparable educational benefit.
- The court held MCC was an appropriate placement because it provided individualized instruction and related services tailored to S.K.’s needs and enabled continued educational progress.
- The court held the equities favored the parents because they acted in good faith, participated in the process, and did not obstruct evaluation or planning.
- The court ordered full tuition reimbursement for MCC for the 2008–2009 school year.
- The court granted the Department’s motion to strike a supplemental affidavit.

## Legal Principles

- An IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits based on the child’s unique needs; material service reductions must be supported by evidence that the child can still obtain meaningful benefit.
- In IDEA judicial review, courts give “due weight” to administrative determinations but may reject conclusions not supported by the record and may credit an IHO’s findings over an SRO’s where the evidentiary support is stronger.
- Tuition reimbursement is available under the Burlington/Carter framework when (1) the public program denies FAPE, (2) the private placement is appropriate (without needing to satisfy all state standards), and (3) equitable factors support relief.
- Equitable reimbursement may be reduced or denied based on parental unreasonableness or lack of cooperation; absent such conduct, full reimbursement may be awarded.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the Department’s proposed kindergarten IEP denied S.K. FAPE because it substantially reduced services that had driven prior progress without evidentiary support that S.K. would benefit comparably, and it awarded the parents full reimbursement for their appropriate unilateral placement at MCC based on favorable equities.


P.K. ex rel. S.K. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 819 F. Supp. 2d 90 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)