FAQ

Know the Law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The IDEA requires school districts to develop IEPs individualized to meet your child’s unique needs.  The United States Supreme Court has held that every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives in the least restrictive environment.  Determining what is appropriate for your child is highly individualized so it is not possible to make sweeping generalizations about how the law would apply to your child’s situation.

Additionally, though the IDEA is a federal statute it is implemented by the States and there is some variability. Reimann Law Group practices exclusively in Pennsylvania.

Nicole has tried more than two dozen cases at the administrative level, has handled many cases in federal court including on judicial review and for expediated relief, and has resolved hundreds more.  She would be happy to discuss your concerns for your child.   

Until then, here is some general information on the law which families have found helpful:

Special Education/Related Services/IEPs

  • Special education is one component of a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).  It is defined as specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.  20 U.S.C.S. § 1401(9), (29).

  • Related services are the support services required to assist your child to benefit from specially designed instruction.  Generally related services includes:

    •     transportation

    •       speech-language pathology

    •       audiology services

    •       interpreting services

    •     psychological services

    •      physical therapy

    •      occupational therapy

    •      recreation, including therapeutic recreation

    •       social work services

    •      school nurse services

    •       counseling services

    •       orientation and mobility services

    •      medical services for diagnostic and evaluation purposes

  • The individualized education program (IEP) is at the center of the IDEA’s educational delivery system for disabled children.  It is a comprehensive plan developed by your child’s IEP team and the means by which special education and related services are tailored to the unique needs of your child.

  • IEP meetings must be held once each year.  However, a parent, or anyone else on the IEP team, may request an IEP meeting at any time.

  • You, a regular education teacher, a special education teacher, a representative of the school district (who is qualified to supervise or provide special education services and knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and resources of the school district), others who know your child including related service providers, and when appropriate, your child are IEP team members.

  • Yes, you have the right to bring whomever you think would be helpful, including advocates, attorneys, therapists, tutors or supportive friends/family, to help with decision-making.  To ensure that there is a collaborative process, it is courteous to let the school district know who you are inviting to join the meeting even though the IDEA does not require you to do so. 

LEA/LEA Responsibilities

  • LEA is the local education agency. It is the school district or charter school your child attends.

  • The LEA is responsible for providing your child with a FAPE.  It has this responsibility even when it issues a NOREP for a placement outside the school district.

Least Restrictive Environment

  • The IDEA requires that children with disabilities receive education in the regular classroom whenever possible.  It is not sufficient that your child is making appropriate progress.  They must make that appropriate progress in the least restrictive environment.  The IEP team must consider the full range of auxiliary aids and services to allow your child to be educated in the least restrictive environment.  The IEP must also include appropriate behavior supports.  Placement decisions must be made after programming decisions and should be the last topic discussed at an IEP meeting.

    Nicole has won due process hearings when LRE is an issue:

    J.V. v. Pottstown Sch. Dist., ODR No. 17720-15-16 (Aug. 12, 2016) (Hearing Officer ordered school district to return a student placed in a full time emotional support program to a district elementary school with supplemental aids and services to address his behavioral needs).

    J.C. v. Octorara Area Sch. Dist., 24322-20-21 (May 15, 2021) (Hearing Officer ordered the school district to convene an IEP meeting within 10 days to develop a new program and to then determine placement in accordance with LRE mandates).

    D.R. v. Belmont Charter Sch., 30563-24-25 (Apr. 15, 2025) (Hearing Officer ordered the school district to convene an IEP meeting to consider placement options along the entire placement continuum).

Pendency

  • No, your child is entitled to stay in the last placement you and the school district agreed upon until a due process hearing officer determines an appropriate placement or you and the school district agree on another placement.

    But to maintain your child’s placement you must disapprove the Notice of Recommended Educational Placement (NOREP) within 10 days AND request mediation or file for due process on the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) website. 

    It is not sufficient to check the box on the NOREP indicating that you are requesting mediation or filing in due process.  You must make the request or file on the ODR website within 10 days.  A lawyer can help you navigate this process.

  • Yes, but again, if the school district proposes a lower level of services or a different placement for your child you must disapprove the NOREP within 10 days AND request mediation or file in due process on the ODR website. 

    It is not sufficient to check the box on the NOREP indicating that you are requesting mediation or filing in due process.  You must make the request or file on the ODR website within 10 days.  A lawyer can help you navigate this process.

    Nicole has been successful in obtaining the agreement of school districts to maintain early intervention services in the school age IEP after they had initially declined to do so.

  • Nicole has successfully argued that it does. See A.B. v. William Penn Sch. Dist., O.D.R. No. 22865 19-20., 22865 19-20 (Feb. 10, 2020).

    When the school district did not comply, Nicole sought and obtained a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to pay tuition at Stratford Friends School. R.R. and K.F. v. William Penn Sch. Dist., 2:20-cv-1799-WB (Aug. 6, 2020).

Interstate and Intrastate Transfer

  • If you voluntarily move from one school district to another, the new school district does not necessarily have to provide the exact same services and placement as the old school district because pendency does not necessarily apply to a voluntary transfer.  But the new school district does have to provide comparable services. 

  • The new school district has to develop its own IEP because the law requires school districts to have an IEP for each child in the district who is eligible for special education services on the first day of school.

    Nicole litigated and won on this issue for a student who moved to a school district from another state over the summer. The Hearing Officer awarded tuition for Woodlynde School.  J.A. v. Owen J. Roberts Sch. Dist., ODR No. 25443-21-22 (Jan. 14, 2022) (school districts need to have a means for determining whether children who move into the State during the summer are children with disabilities and for ensuring that an IEP is in effect at the beginning of the school year).

Tuition Reimbursement

  • A school district is required to reimburse the cost of tuition and related expenses, such as transportation and other related services if (1) the IEP the school district offered your child when you placed them in the private school was not a FAPE, (2) the private school you chose is providing educational benefit for your child, and (3) the equities favor reimbursement.  This test was developed in two cases and is called the Burington/Carter test.

    Nicole has obtained tuition reimbursement through due process in a number of cases, including:

    S.S. v. Coatesville Area Sch. Dist., ODR. No. 20136-17-18 (Jul. 3, 2018) (school district ordered to pay tuition for Woodlynde School). 

    A.O. v. Norristown Area Sch. Dist., ODR Nos. 23334-19-20, 23394-19-20 (Jun. 28, 2020) (school district ordered to pay tuition for The Quaker School Horsham).

    M.F. v. Upper Merion Area Sch. Dist., ODR no. 23339-19-20 (Aug. 7, 2020) (school district ordered to pay tuition for Hill Top School).

    F.C. v. Norristown Area Sch. Dist., ODR No. 25209-21-22 (May 13, 2022) (school district ordered to pay tuition for Vanguard School).

    S.M. v. Upper Darby Sch. Dist., ODR No. 28243-22-23 (Dec. 3, 2023) (school district ordered to pay tuition for Benchmark School).

    A.C. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., ODR No. 29529-23-24 (Aug. 12, 2024) (school district ordered to pay tuition for Woodlynde School).

    S.G. v. Pennridge Sch. Dist., ODR No. 30080-24-25 (Nov. 27, 2024) (school district ordered to pay tuition for Capstone School).

    Additionally, Nicole has obtained many settlements for tuition at private schools selected by Parents.  

  • Your child may be entitled to an award of compensatory education, which is designed to compensate them for the period of time they were deprived of appropriate educational services excluding time reasonably required for the District to correct the deficiency.  Compensatory education is often awarded using an hour for hour approach—that is, one hour of compensatory education for each hour that your child was denied a particular special education or related service.

    Nicole has obtained awards of compensatory education through due process in several cases, including:

    C.M. v. Montgomery Cty Intermediate Unit, 18243-16-17 (Jan. 11, 20217) (awarding 5 hours of compensatory education/day to an early intervention student), affirmed on appeal.  Montgomery Cty Intermediate Unit No. 23 v. C.M., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168709 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12. 2017).  

    E.B. v. Downingtown Area School District, O.D.R. No. 21615-18-19 (Jun. 10, 2019) (awarding compensatory education but denying tuition reimbursement). 

    M.S. v. Upper Darby Sch. Dist., ODR No. 23355-19-20 (Jun. 15, 2020) (4.66 hours of compensatory education/day for 9 months and 2 hours/day for 3 additional months).

    A.D. v. Upper Merion Area Sch. Dist., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197282 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2022) (compensatory education awarded during time in person instruction not available to student following initial COVID-19 school closures).

    J.S. v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., ODR No. 26336-21-22 (Aug. 26, 2022) (awarding compensatory and ordering the school district to convene an IEP meeting).

    S.A. v. Chichester Sch. Dist., ODR No. 30220-24-25 (Jan. 29, 2025) (Hearing Officer awarded compensatory education for 2 school years).

    Nicole has also settled hundreds of cases for awards of compensatory education.

  • The school district creates a fund that you can use for education and related services to meet your child's needs, such as tutoring, speech therapy, counseling, and technology.

Compensatory Education

Discipline

  • The answer to this depends on several fact specific determinations.  However, under Pennsylvania and Federal law, when behavior is a manifestation of the child’s disability, the student is entitled to certain protections, beginning with a determination of whether the behavior was a manifestation of their disability.

    Nicole has been successful at preventing school district from expelling a student where the incident was a manifestation of the student’s disability.  J.S. v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., ODR No. 26270-21-22 (Apr. 28, 2022) (barring school district from convening an expulsion hearing because it would be a unilateral change of placement where the student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability and no exception applies).

Section 504 and ADA

Section 504 and the ADA may provide independent claims for school-based discrimination including for a denial of FAPE, effective communication, and use of a service animal.

Discrimination Claims

  • Section 504 and ADA claims are for discrimination and may involve a school district’s or charter school’s failure to provide modifications and accommodations.  Under Section 504 and the ADA, school districts and charter schools have FAPE and effective communication obligations and use of a service dog is a per se reasonable accommodation and modification.

  • No, a denial of FAPE claim under the IDEA can be resolved through an administrative appeal but ADA and Section 504 discrimination claims seeking compensatory damages even if on the same facts, should be resolved through summary judgment and possibly trial.