Monday, October 12, 2009

Location, Location, Location

The Second Circuit, in T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education, has held that the failure of an IEP to name a specific school as the placement for a child does not render the IEP procedurally deficient. While the statute, 29 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A) requires that an IEP provide a location, the Court noted that the United States Department of Education had concluded that "[t]he location of services in the context of an IEP generally refers t the type of environment that is the appropriate place for provision of the service. For example, is the related service to be provided in the child's regular classroom or resource room?" It held that this conclusion comported with the Senant's commentary, which stats that "[t]he location where special education and related services will be provided to a child influences decisions about the nature and amount of these services and when they should be provided to a child. For example, the appropriate place for the related service may be the regular classroom, os tha thte child does not have to choose between a needed service and the regular educational program. For this reason, in the bill the committee has added location to the porivision in the IEP that includes 'the prjected date for the beginning of services and modifications, and the anticipated frequency, location and duration of those services.

The Court also noted that improper omissions from the IEP, which are corrected in the administrative process does not render an IEP, as a whole, substantively deficient.

The decision can be found here.