Hyde Parents applying for tuition reimbursement

[Anonymous]

Here follow two examples of Hyde parents who have attempted to require local public school systems to reimburse them for Hyde tuiton, claiming that Hyde is an appropriate (and necessary) placement for their children with special needs. Kind of hilarious, given that Hyde famously provides NO professional support for those with learning, emotional or psychiatric disabilities. Certainly would be a boon for admissions if parents could put our tax dollars to work at Hyde!

Yours,
Lurker

http://www.sro.nysed.gov/2003/03-066.htm
Petitioners appeal from an impartial hearing officer's decision that denied their request for reimbursement of their child's tuition at The Hyde School (Hyde) for the 2002-03 school year.

http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pubs/electron ... ticle3.pdf

Court denies reimbursement for costs and tuition
associated with child’s stay at a private psychiatric
facility and boarding school.

Jennings v. Fairfax County
School Board (unpublished, 4th Cir., July 16, 2002).
Facts: K.J., a tenth-grade student in the
Fairfax County (Va.) Public Schools (FCPS), was diagnosed as
eligible for special education services in April 1997. In September
1997 the Jenningses placed Kendall at the Hyde School, a
private boarding school that specializes in students with
behavioral problems but offers no programs in special education.
The Jenningses did not notify FCPS of the placement
until November, when they sought reimbursement of the
$25,000 annual tuition at the Hyde School. In response, FCPSconvened a meeting to create an individualized education
plan (IEP) for Kendall. The meeting resulted in an IEP
proposing that Kendall be placed at a private day school but
did not include a representative from any specific day school,
although an FCPS official specializing in such placements did
attend. The Jenningses rejected the IEP.
One year later, the Jenningses again sought reimbursement
for the Hyde School tuition. They alleged that FCPS’s failure
to identify a specific day school and to include a representative
from that school in the IEP meeting deprived Kendall of a
free appropriate public education (FAPE). A state hearing
officer disagreed but nonetheless concluded that FCPS should
reimburse them in an amount equal to the costs of tuition at a
suitable local private day school.
While both parties were appealing this ruling, they learned
that Kendall would not graduate on time. Over the
Jenningses’ objections, FCPS held another IEP meeting, which
recommended that Kendall be placed at the Woodson Center,
a program that provides college-track classes along with
special education classes and clinical personnel. A representative
of the center attended the meeting. The Jenningses
rejected the placement and sent Kendall to the Hyde School
for a third year, adding to their appeal a request for reimbursement
of the third year’s tuition.
On appeal, the hearing officer rejected the Jenningses’
newest request for tuition reimbursement, finding that FCPS
had recommended an appropriate placement. The hearing
officer also reversed the earlier reimbursement order, because
the Jenningses had failed to notify FCPS before placing
Kendall at the Hyde School. The Jennings appealed this order,
and the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia
affirmed it. The Jenningses appealed again.
Holding: In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed.
In affirming the state hearing officer’s judgment for FCPS,
the district court found that any procedural violations made
by FCPS in the first IEP meeting did not result in a loss of
educational opportunity to Kendall or infringe the Jenningses’
right to participate in the IEP process. In addition, the
Jenningses’ failure to notify FCPS of Kendall’s Hyde School
placement deprived FCPS of a timely opportunity to develop
an IEP for her. Once allowed this opportunity, FCPS developed
an IEP that offered Kendall an FAPE. Based on these
findings, the court of appeals refused to reverse the district
court’s ruling.
© 2002 Institute of Government

[Ursus]

Yes, these two cases illustrate tragic breakdowns in communication between parents and their respective public school distracts, parental choice of Hyde School as a solution to their dissatisfaction with their child's progress in the public school system, and then, finally, failure to convince local government to pay for said choice with tax dollars.

Lurker sums it up nicely:  "Kind of hilarious, given that Hyde famously provides NO professional support for those with learning, emotional or psychiatric disabilities. Certainly would be a boon for admissions if parents could put our tax dollars to work at Hyde!"  

New York State Review Officer Paul F. Kelly also made note of Hyde's failure in this regard when he summarized in his decision:

The evidence shows that the student engaged in drug use outside of school and had family problems (Transcript pp. 89-90, 122). The father testified that, because of these problems, he and his wife felt that their son should attend school outside of New York City (Transcript p. 12). A psychiatrist who evaluated the student testified that New York City was "the wrong place for this child" because his performance in school was being affected by his inappropriate activity after school (Transcript pp. 189-190). A review of the psychiatric testimony indicates that the psychiatrist recommended a residential placement primarily because of the student's behavior that took place outside of school. The psychiatrist did not indicate why a residential placement was necessary for the student to benefit from special education. In fact, the student did not receive any special education services at Hyde during the fall term (Transcript pp. 76, 89).

The Virginia case also refers to Hyde's inability to provide Special Education services, albeit more succinctly:  

In September 1997 the Jenningses placed Kendall at the Hyde School, a private boarding school that specializes in students with behavioral problems but offers no programs in special education.

I did find the editor's characterization of Hyde in the latter case ('Clearinghouse,' School Law Bulletin, NC) as a "private psychiatric facility and boarding school" most humorous as well!

Had these parents been able to prove Hyde's attention towards addressing their respective child's needs, however inadequate in real life it may have been, the decisions may have been different.  As it stands, savvy local courts generally see through glossy PR hype and propaganda and can smell a rat when they see one.

[Anonymous]

I'm a parent of a special needs child myself, and someone who developed a serious depression while at Hyde.  I really do empathize with these parents, who have been failed by the public school system, then hoodwinked (manipulated? strongarmed?) by Hyde.  
I am grateful that these courts have seen through the pretense of Hyde as a theraputic environment. I hope the families have not been much harmed by what must have been a gruelling legal (and personal) process.

Lurker

[Ursus]

I'm a parent of a special needs child myself, and someone who developed a serious depression while at Hyde.  I really do empathize with these parents, who have been failed by the public school system, then hoodwinked (manipulated? strongarmed?) by Hyde.  
I am grateful that these courts have seen through the pretense of Hyde as a theraputic environment. I hope the families have not been much harmed by what must have been a gruelling legal (and personal) process.

Lurker

I too have a young special needs child, and am only just beginning what portends to be a long and arduous process of doing battle with the public school system regarding my child's needs and issues.  Communication is key, and the two cases you posted clearly demonstrated a communication breakdown between the parents and their respective school districts long before the issue of Hyde School entered their lives.

I would find it most egregious if I were to learn that Hyde led these parents to believe that reimbursement for the Hyde School tuition was in any way likely to be, let alone feasibly, reimbursed by reaming the respective school districts' coffers.  That would signify an unconscionable distortion of reality by Hyde, and one that undoubtedly caused these families untold financial hardship and emotional distress, on top of everything else they had been going through.