The Special Ed Advocate newsletter It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

2025 Training Programs

Mar. 18-19 - VA via ZOOM Sept. 18 - MD via ZOOM Full Schedule

Wrightslaw

Home Topics from A-Z Free Newsletter Seminars & Training Yellow Pages for Kids Press Room FAQs Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Store   Advocate's Store   Student Bookstore   Exam Copies Training Center Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles Cool Tools Doing Your Homework Ask the Advocate FAQs Newsletter Archives Short Course Series Success Stories Tips

Law Library

Articles Caselaw Fed Court Complaints IDEA 2004 McKinney-Vento Homeless FERPA Section 504

Topics

Advocacy ADD/ADHD Allergy/Anaphylaxis American Indian Assistive Technology Autism Spectrum Behavior & Discipline Bullying College/Continuing Ed Damages Discrimination Due Process Early Intervention   (Part C) Eligibility Episodic, such as    Allergies, Asthma,    Diabetes, Epilepsy, etc ESSA ESY Evaluations FAPE Flyers Future Planning Harassment High-Stakes Tests Homeless Children IDEA 2004 Identification & Child Find IEPs Juvenile Justice Law School & Clinics Letters & Paper Trails LRE / Inclusion Mediation Military / DOD Parental Protections PE and Adapted PE Privacy & Records Procedural Safeguards Progress Monitoring Reading Related Services Research Based   Instruction Response to Intervention   (RTI) Restraints / Seclusion    and Abuse Retention Retaliation School Report Cards Section 504 Self-Advocacy Teachers & Principals Transition Twice Exceptional (2e) VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore Advocacy Resources Directories   Disability Groups   International   State DOEs   State PTIs Free Flyers Free Pubs Free Newsletters Legal & Advocacy Glossaries    Legal Terms    Assessment Terms Best School Websites

The United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Thomas Mackey, Parent of a Disabled Student, Thomas M.; Barbara Mackey, Parent of a Disabled Student, Thomas M.; Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Board of Education for the Arlington Central School District; The State Education Department, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No.

Argued:

Decided:

 

---

BACKGROUND

I. The IDEA

II. Factual and Procedural Background

at Arlington High School and received special instruction in vocational education and career activities, pursuant to the IEPs developed for those years.

A. The 1999-2000 School Year (not at issue in this action)

the District to reimburse the parents for the 1999-2000 Maplebrook tuition. The District challenged the SRO's decision in federal court and lost. The District appealed, but later withdrew the appeal and, in May 2002, reimbursed the parents for T.M.'s tuition at Maplebrook.

B. The 2000-2001 School Year (the year at issue)

therefore inappropriate," and that the District had provided a FAPE.

C. The Federal Court Action

after the 2000-2001 school year at issue, the parents could not be reimbursed for Maplebrook tuition for that year.[3]

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

this record, we find no material issues of fact in dispute.

II. Application

adequacy of the 2000-2001 IEP.

CONCLUSION

proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

---

Footnotes