Stating the Location of Services in an IEP

In T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education, 584 F. 3d 412 (2nd Circuit 2009), the parents of a student with autism sought tuition reimbursement for private school placement claiming several IDEA violations. One major violation they asserted was how the district failed to specify in the IEP which school their child would attend. District policy stated that a citywide placement offer was responsible for identifying a school capable of providing the most appropriate services. This typically took place after the IEP meeting was held. In this particular case, once the parents learned which school their child was supposed to attend they vistited the school then objected to the placement. The district offered another school but the parents rejected it without visiting then later enrolled their child in a school for autistic students and requested reimbursement. They claimed that the district committed a procedural violation by not adhering to 20 U.S.C. Section 1414(d)(1)(A) of the IDEA which indicates an IEP must include the "anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services." In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, noted "the term 'location' does not mean the specific school location, but the general environment of the overall program." Hence, there was no procedural violation of IDEA.