There is no precedent, as this was a 4-4 split decision, with Kennedy recusing himself for undisclosed reasons.
The basics are as follows: Tom Freston has a child with learning disabilities, and the New York school system evaluated him and placed him at their Lower Laboratory School for Gifted Education.
Freston refused the placement, and placed him in a private school at significant expense, and then went to court for reimbursement.
I have a child in a non-public placement, Charlie, a human metronome and remarkably erudite 8-year old. He has Aspergers.
He is in the private placement, at county expense, because the local school was unwilling to make the necessary accommodations to deal with his disability.
Had the (thankfully now retired) principal at Timber Grove, Charlie’s school, been willing to make some relatively inexpensive accommodations, he would still be there, at less than one tenth the cost to the county.
Basically, if the aid assigned to him had been competent, or even willing to do the necessary training, he would still be there.
So I am in a very similar place to Mr. Freston. The difference is that we attempted to make the system work. The placement could have been appropriate, but the school administration was unwilling to make it so.
Mr. Freston did not give New York City Schools a chance. This is the part that I object too, as does my wife, who is a special education consultant (click here for her web page).
The environment in place at the Lower Laboratory School for Gifted Education would most likely have been adequate to this child’s needs (a reading delay), and the local school system must be given a reasonable chance.
