Summertime Blues: T.M. v. Cornwall and The Mainstreaming of Extended-School-Year Programs

by Pullman & Comley - School Law

In a decision that will likely result in both practical challenges and financial burdens for public school districts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in T.M. v. Cornwall Central School District that the legal obligation to educate special education students in the least restrictive environment, or “LRE,” is not limited to the regular school year. To the contrary, the court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, or “IDEA,” mandates that students also be mainstreamed to the maximum extent possible in extended-school-year, or “ESY,” programs.

The IDEA requires public school districts to provide special education and related services to eligible students in the form of an Individualized Education Program, or “IEP.” Although IEPs typically address educational needs only during the regular school year, some disabled students who, like T.M., would otherwise experience substantial educational regression, are also entitled to ESY services. In Cornwall, T.M.’s parents rejected the district’s summer ESY programs as they did not include non-disabled students and instead unilaterally placed him in a private, less-restrictive program. Noting that T.M.’s IEPs during the regular school years were designed for implementation in mainstream classrooms, and that he had previously progressed in a private, mainstream summer program, the Second Circuit held that the district was obligated to offer T.M. an ESY placement in a mainstream classroom.

In so holding, the court flatly rejected the school district’s contention that the LRE requirement should apply differently to ESY programs, writing instead that as with school-year placements, “a school district first must consider an appropriate continuum of alternative [ESY] placements; it then must offer the disabled student the least restrictive placement from that continuum that is appropriate for his or her needs.” The court also dismissed Cornwall’s argument that a student’s LRE must be considered solely within the context of the district’s preexisting ESY programs, tartly observing that a student’s LRE “refers to the least restrictive setting consistent with the student’s needs, not the least restrictive setting that the school district chooses to make available.”

The court sought to reassure districts that the IDEA does not require them to create new, mainstream ESY programs in order to serve the needs of one, or even more, disabled children, writing that districts can instead contract with other public or private entities to provide a less-restrictive ESY placement. The court added that school districts may also avoid the obligation to reimburse parents for the cost of unilateral placements if the parents’ placement is inappropriate, or if it is “objectively impossible or impracticable” for the district to provide a student with an ESY program in his or her LRE. Thus, the court did “not believe that school districts will face any substantial burden from reimbursement claims for ESY programs – at least, no burden that Congress did not foresee and intend when framing the IDEA.”

What is the effect of the t.m. decision?

The appeals court’s unwillingness to recognize the different purposes served by a regular school year IEP and by an ESY program creates a significant dilemma for school districts. Whereas the school-year IEP is designed to ensure that disabled students – like their non-disabled peers — progress academically, ESY services are provided so that certain disabled students will not regress. In other words, the school year IEP contemplates a forward educational trajectory, whereas ESY aspires only to educational stasis. By its very nature, then, ESY is an intervention that is limited to the most impaired special education students, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate for regular education children. Consequently, and unlike a district’s regular school year programming, ESY programs typically have no non-disabled students with whom a district can mainstream disabled students.

The decision, then, leaves school districts with a limited number of responses. They could implement a form of the reverse mainstreaming that is common in district preschool programs, thereby offering summer programming to non-disabled students for the sole purpose of creating a mainstream ESY environment for special education students. Given the divergent academic needs of the special and the regular education students, however, this could prove to be a tricky pedagogical mix, particularly in the higher grades. This same challenge would confront cooperative programs established among contiguous districts – or, in a state like Connecticut, by a Regional Educational Service Center – in which the cost of staff would be allocated among the districts based upon the number of their respective students.

A far less palatable, but perhaps almost inevitable, approach would be for districts to contract with private, mainstream programs, leaving districts to struggle with the costly proposition of providing these students with the requisite special education and related service staff.

Regardless of what option a district adopts, and contrary to the Second Circuit’s conclusion, the T.M. decision may constitute a new and potentially costly obligation for school districts.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pullman & Comley - School Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pullman & Comley - School Law

Pullman & Comley - School Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.