P.K. Ex Rel. S.K. v. New York City Department of Education

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that where a court has determined that the state agency’s proposed placement did not violate IDEA, “[the court] need not consider the remaining two prongs of the Burlington-Carter test”
• noting the reluctance to find denial of FAPE based on an IEP’s failure to clearly identify annual goals or methods of measuring progress
• declining to deny or reduce reimbursement where parents noted “they were willing to meet with the Department to try to resolve the matter” and parent’s testimony about basis for refusing school district’s proposed placement was “credible”
• finding an IEP substantively inadequate where, inter alia, the student had been receiving speech therapy in 1:1 sessions 3x30 per week, but the IEP provided for speech therapy in 3:1 sessions 3x30, and eliminated ten hours per week of 1:1 home-based ABA therapy
• “The parents bear the burden of establishing that the placement they selected was an appropriate one.”
• “[O]n the other hand a substantive violation arises from a deficiency in the programming being offered.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).