What You Need to Know About Out-of-District Placements
Every child with a disability between the ages of 3 and 21 is entitled to free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. This article explores when an out-of-district placement is needed, and how to best advocate for the appropriate placement.
January 14, 2022 at 10:00 AM
9 minute read
The COVID-19 health crisis has been an enormously challenging time for students, parents, teachers, and administrators. The extended period of remote learning impacted all students, including those with special needs who receive services and accommodations pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). When schools reopened, issues relating to learning loss, mental health, socialization, and IEP violations were prevalent. The manner in which these issues were, and continue to be, addressed varies from district to district. In some cases, a child's needs simply cannot be met, and an out-of-district placement is needed, but securing an out-of-district placement at the district's expense can prove difficult. This article explores when an out-of-district placement is needed and how to best advocate for the appropriate placement.
As a matter of both federal and state law, every child with a disability between the ages of 3 and 21 is entitled to free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. See 20 U.S.C. §1400 (2004) et seq.; 34 C.F.R. §300.1 (2006) et seq. The IDEA and New Jersey statutes provide that the student's school district must deliver special education and related services in accordance with the student's Individual Education Plan (IEP) and guarantee the right of parents to participate in planning and monitoring the education program and services provided to the child. Id.; N.J.A.C.6A:14. There are approximately 230,000 students in New Jersey who are classified as eligible for special education. That translates to 230,000 individual education plans that need to be implemented to ensure FAPE.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
8 minute readAttorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250