A recent case out of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania provides some helpful guidance on how to address parental requests for transportation of special education students.
In the case of S.K. v. North Allegheny School District (- 2015 WL 1285794; Civil Action No. 14 – 218 (W.D.Pa., Mar. 20, 2015), the court was called upon to address a difficult case in which the student had been out of school for two years because the district refused to transport the student from a special education setting to a parentally-chosen child care center because the center was outside of the district’s attendance border. The court ruled, under the circumstances of this specific case, that the district was correct and was not required to provide transportation to the child care center.
Facts In The Case
The student in S.K. was visually and hearing impaired and also had significant medical needs that required that he be placed in an out-of-district special education setting. The parent requested that the district provide transportation from the special education setting to a child care center chosen by the parent. The parent chose the child care center at issue on the basis that it was a specialized center that could address the student’s various medical needs. The parties agreed to the district providing transportation to its students, including two additional students who were attending the same special education setting as the student in S.K., from school to child care centers, but only if the day care facility was located within the district’s attendance boundaries and school attendance zones.
However, the child care center chosen by the parents in S.K. was not located within the district’s attendance area. While the parents provided notes from doctors suggesting that the specific child care center chosen by parent was medically necessary, it appears that the primary reason for the placement in the child care center was so that the parent could work. The district denied the request for transportation and, when the student failed to attend school for two years.
The Court’s Explanation
Under these circumstances, the court found that the district was not required to transport the student to the child care center chosen by the parents. First, the court explained that the primary reason that the student needed the transportation to a child care facility was not educational or student need, but rather to facilitate the parents’ work needs.
Second, the record was clear that the reason for denying this service was equally applied to all students,
disabled or not, and, as a result, there was no evidence to establish that the decision to do so was discriminatory against this specific student.
Bottom Line
The S.K. case provides some helpful guidance in terms of how to address what can sometimes be difficult requests from parents for transportation.
First, the focus must be on the needs of the child and whether the child needs the transportation to access his or her education, rather than the needs of the parents.
Second, equality is critical, and while districts must provide the same services that they provide to other students to students with a disability, do not have to go above and beyond that simply because the parent requests it. As the S.K. court noted, these kinds of cases can be “heart wrenching,” but if districts look at these instances as objectively as possible, as suggested by S.K., it might help to take some of the emotion out of the decision.
If you have any questions, contact your legal counsel or one of the education law attorneys at KingSpry.
School Law Bullets are a publication of the KingSpry Education Law Practice Group. John E. Freund, III, is our editor. The article is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
