T.K. v. N.Y.C.

Department of Education

Fact(s): A student (L.K.) was a third grade student at a public school in New York. She started
off the school year well, but was placed on an I.E.P. due to multiple learning disabilities. At the
school she was placed in a Collaborative Team Teaching class, which included general and
special education students and which was taught by both a general and a special education
teacher. The Department also provided L.K. with one-on-one Special Education Itinerant
Teachers. Towards the end of the school year, L.K. was beginning to be bullied severely.
Students in the classroom teased her relentlessly calling her fat, ugly, and stupid. At one
point, students refused to hold a pencil just because L.K. had touched it. The teacher in the
classroom worsened the bullying when she joined in by labeling the pencil as L.K.s pencil,
which she claimed was due to her poor grooming and overall health concerns. At the students
I.E.P. meeting at the end of the year, the principal and teachers refused to discuss the bullying
happening in the classroom, claiming it had nothing to do with her I.E.P. The meeting continued,
but the parents of L.K. rejected the I.E.P. that the school had made for their daughter. Instead, the
parents enrolled L.K. by placing a one month tuition payments that was non-refundable. The
parents of L.K. requested that the state pay for their childs private education under the rules and
regulations of IDEA that are in place to help and protect students with learning disabilities.

Issue(s): Under IDEA should parents of a bullied I.E.P. student have the right to unilaterally
reject their students I.E.P. and request the state to pay instead for private schooling?

Ruling: The courts decided that the parents were entitled to payment due to the provision of
FAPE in IDEA. FAPE stands for Free Appropriate Public Education. In the courts decision, they
decided that the student did not indeed have access to a FAPE and therefore decided that the
private school was an appropriate placement for L.K. The plaintiffs were awarded payment by
the state for the private schooling for L.K.

Rationale: During the school year, the teachers were found to make little to no efforts to stop the
bullying of L.K. In fact, there were instances where the teachers were found to promote the
bullying of L.K. During the school year, the parents of L.K. called to discuss said bullying of
their daughter. The principal as well as the teachers of L.K. several times refused to discuss or
admit that there was any bullying going on in the school setting. During the writing of the I.E.P.

the bullying issue was once again not discussed and the parents rejected the plan written by the
school. Because of this neglect of an issue that was clearly occurring, the court decided that the
parents had the right to reject the I.E.P. and that the private school was an appropriate setting for
L.K. and that they had grounds to receive payment from the school district for said schooling.

Brief Analysis and Conclusion: Bullying is an issue that comes up a decent amount in a school
setting. There are all sorts of bullying, from physical to mental. There is a fine line between kids
being kids and bullying of a student. A student who pushes another out of frustration may not be
seen as bullying by some, but can be seen as a personal attack on a student. In this case, the
principal refused to accept that there was bullying going on in the classroom, and because of this
neglect of the situation, they were taken to court. Bullying is a hot button issue in education.
With the addition of social media, students can bully from behind a computer screen or cell
phone without knowledge of the school district. If it doesnt happen on school grounds, bullying
gets tricky for the school district. This case goes to show that constant communication with
parents and teachers is vital in order to stop any bullying that may be taking place in our
classrooms.