Board of Education of the Mamaroneck Union Free School District v. D.B.

Background

The Board of Education of the Mamaroneck Union Free School District brought this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law requiring schools to provide eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education. The District sought review of a New York State Review Officer’s decision concerning A.B., a minor.

A.B. attended the Mamaroneck Avenue School in an integrated co-teaching setting during the 2019 school year. Between September 6 and October 1, 2019, A.B. was suspended for a total of seven and one-half days because of physically aggressive behavior and leaving school grounds. On September 27, the District’s special-education committee recommended four hours of home instruction per day while it searched for an out-of-district therapeutic day program. The committee discussed the intensive day treatment program, but it was not part of the committee’s formal recommendation and did not provide special education.

A.B. began attending the intensive day treatment program on October 4, 2019, and remained there until November 27, when he transferred to the Pocantico Hills Therapeutic Support Program with An.S.’s agreement. The District treated A.B.’s formal placement as home instruction effective October 2. An.S. challenged the change and sought to keep A.B. in his prior placement at the Mamaroneck Avenue School under the “stay-put” provision. The related administrative proceedings were consolidated.

The Impartial Hearing Officer found that the District had offered A.B. a free appropriate public education and that the removals were based on safety concerns rather than discipline. The State Review Officer later reversed part of that decision. The State Review Officer concluded that the intensive day treatment program was an “interim alternative educational setting,” meaning a temporary placement different from the child’s current placement, and that the District should have sought a hearing to determine whether returning A.B. to his prior placement was likely to cause injury. The State Review Officer also concluded that a manifestation determination review was required and awarded A.B. one hour of instruction for each day attended, totaling 37 hours of compensatory education.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that review of a state administrative decision under the disability-education law is not ordinary summary judgment review. The court independently reviewed the administrative record and considered the evidence, while giving appropriate weight to the expertise and reasoning of the state education officers. The court reviewed the central statutory-interpretation issue fully rather than deferring to the State Review Officer’s legal conclusion.

The court disagreed that A.B.’s attendance at the intensive day treatment program was either a disciplinary change in placement or an interim alternative educational setting. Under the cited New York regulation, a disciplinary change in placement generally involves a suspension or removal lasting more than 10 consecutive school days, or repeated removals totaling more than 10 school days and forming a qualifying pattern. An interim alternative educational setting is a temporary educational placement other than the student’s current placement when the conduct leading to the placement occurred.

The court emphasized that A.B. had been formally assigned to home instruction, not to the intensive day treatment program. The intensive day treatment program was not the committee’s formal recommendation and was not A.B.’s official change of placement. Although the record supported the conclusion that home instruction was impractical for An.S. because of her work schedule, the court held that practical difficulties did not convert the intensive day treatment program into a placement governed by the procedural protections for disciplinary changes in placement.

The court identified three options available to An.S. after A.B. was barred from attending the Mamaroneck Avenue School: accept home instruction, take A.B. to the intensive day treatment program, or invoke the stay-put provision while challenging the change to home instruction. Because the District did not unilaterally place A.B. in the intensive day treatment program, the court held that A.B.’s attendance there was an agreed-upon arrangement pending resolution of the parties’ proceedings. The court expressly stated that the propriety of the District’s change to home instruction was not before it.

Disposition

The court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. It reversed the State Review Officer’s holding that A.B.’s enrollment in the intensive day treatment program constituted an interim alternative educational setting and reversed the resulting award of 37 hours of compensatory education. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the action.