When Can Parents Get Reimbursement for Private School Under FAPE?

Parents ask this question all the time:

“If the public school isn’t working, can I put my child in private school and make the district pay?”

Sometimes—but not automatically, and not simply because a private school is smaller or better. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), reimbursement is a specific remedy that applies only in limited circumstances.

A recent decision from Washington, D.C. provides a useful example of how reimbursement cases are analyzed. While this decision is not binding in Tennessee, it illustrates IDEA principles that parents should understand before making the high‑risk decision to unilaterally place a child in private school.

The General Rule: Reimbursement Is Possible, But Parents Take a Risk

Under longstanding IDEA case law, parents who unilaterally place their child in private school do so at their own financial risk. Reimbursement is not automatic and is often denied even where parents act in good faith.

To obtain reimbursement, parents generally must prove three things:

1. The school district denied the child a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE);
2. The private school placement chosen by the parents was appropriate for the child’s needs; and
3. The equities favor reimbursement (including proper notice and reasonable parental conduct).

If a district offered an appropriate IEP and placement, reimbursement is usually unavailable—even if the private school may seem preferable.

A Recent D.C. Example: Reimbursement Awarded Due to a Defective IEP

In a November 22, 2025 Hearing Officer Determination from the District of Columbia (OSSE Office of Dispute Resolution, Case No. 2025‑0148), a parent sought reimbursement and ongoing funding for a specialized nonpublic school for the 2025–2026 school year.

The central issue was not placement structure, class size, or teacher ratios. Instead, the case turned on a fundamental problem with the IEP itself.

The district’s proposed IEP failed to include a statement of the reading intervention services the student would receive, despite:

•       neuropsychological evaluations recommending intensive reading intervention;

•       evidence that the student continued to require small‑group reading instruction;

•       prior due process findings emphasizing reading needs; and

•       testimony from district witnesses acknowledging that reading services were necessary.

The district argued that it could not fully explain how reading intervention would be delivered because the student was not enrolled in the public school yet. The hearing officer rejected that position, emphasizing that parents must be able to make an informed decision based on the IEP as written—not based on assurances of future explanations.

Because the IEP omitted critical information about reading intervention, the hearing officer found that the district failed to meet its burden of proving it offered FAPE.

The Remedy: Reimbursement and Continued Funding

Once a denial of FAPE was established, the hearing officer evaluated whether the private placement was appropriate and whether the equities favored reimbursement.

The private school was found appropriate even though not all teachers held special education certification. The hearing officer relied in part on federal district court authority (including E.B. v. District of Columbia, Oct. 8, 2025), which rejected the argument that private schools must meet the same staffing certification standards imposed on public schools—particularly where the school was approved by the relevant education agency.

The hearing officer ordered:

•       reimbursement for covered tuition and related expenses already paid (upon documentation); and

•       continued funding for the remainder of the school year to avoid educational disruption.

Important Limitation: This Is Not Tennessee Law

This decision arose under the D.C. Circuit and District of Columbia administrative procedures. It is not binding on Tennessee hearing officers or courts.

However, the IDEA reimbursement framework is the same nationwide. Tennessee cases apply the same three‑part analysis: denial of FAPE, appropriateness of the private placement, and equitable considerations.

The case is therefore useful as an illustration of how vague or incomplete IEPs—particularly those omitting core services like reading intervention—can expose districts to reimbursement claims.

Practical Takeaways for Parents

Parents considering unilateral private placement should keep several points in mind:

•       The IEP must clearly describe essential services. Accommodations alone do not replace specialized instruction.

•       Parents should not be required to enroll a child before learning how critical services will be delivered.

•       Written notice and documentation matter. Reimbursement is an equitable remedy.

•       Unilateral placement remains a gamble. Parents can prevail on FAPE and still lose reimbursement if the private placement is inappropriate or equities weigh against them.

Final Thought

One of the most important questions parents can ask at an IEP meeting is also one of the simplest:

“Where, in the IEP, does it explain how my child’s reading intervention will be provided?”

If the IEP cannot answer that question clearly, parents may be facing the same type of dispute that led to reimbursement in the D.C. case discussed above.

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every IDEA case depends on its specific facts, record, and applicable state law.