BURLINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

V.
DEPARTMENT OF ED OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Hannah Mellick, EDUC 260
Introduction
◦ Burlington School Committee v Department
of Ed of Massachusetts biggest conflicts are
of LRE, and issues of payment. 
◦ Michael Panico was moved by his parents at
the request of a specialist to a neighboring
elementary school because his needs were
not being met at the original school. 
◦ The Panicos sought financial payment for
tuition and transportation from the School
committee of Burlington. 
◦ The school denied payment, and litigation
ensued.
◦ Should Michael have been removed from his
school and placed in another?
◦ Who is going to pay for transportation, tuition
and fees?
 Facts
◦ After two+ years of no change in
progress, the Panicos chose to move
Michael  to a private school
◦ The Panicos seek financial relief from the
town of Burlington
◦ The Bureau of Special Education Appeals
(BSEA) ordered the town of Burlington to
pay. 
◦ The Supreme Court rules that the town of
Burlington will pay the Panicos for all
incurred costs due to the move, and
during the trail. 
◦ The ruling was upheld based on The
Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (now IDEA)
Issue
The main issue in this case was an issue of payment. 

Who will pay for Michael's tuition and transportation fees? Are the Panicos
responsible because they made the decision to move Michael out of public
school? Is the town of Burlington responsible because they failed to help
Michael? 

There is also the issue of determining if the Panico's rights were waved under
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). Due to the move not
being agreed upon by all parties of the IEP team. Who was in the wrong in this
situation? 
Holding
◦ The town of Burlington would be required to reimburse the Panico family. 

◦ The court also ruled that the private school is the most appropriate place for
Michael.

◦ The ruling was determined in April of 1985

◦ This ruling was determined by

◦ BSEA,
◦ The First District Court
◦ The Supreme Court
Rationale
◦ Unanimous vote (0-9)
◦ Were the Panicos rights violated, or
were they waved under EACHA?
◦ The court ruled that situations like this
are why EACHA is in place. It is to
ensure that parents have a voice in
their child's education.,
◦ The definition of Appropriate was
also brought up
◦ Was public school the most
appropriate environment for Michael?
◦ The court ruled in favor of the
Panicos choice to remove Michael.
Education, 1985 &
Education Today
◦ Money will always be a controversial topic for
all sides of education
◦ Services, grants, and assistive technology in and out of
the classroom

◦ EACHA --> IDEA

◦ Free and Appropriate Public Education
◦ Least Restrictive Environemnt 
◦ Ensures parents and legal guardians a voice in
their child's education
Opinion
◦ I agree with the outcome of the case

◦ Most schools do not have extra funds

◦ Reimbursment payemnts that are not
budgeted are hard on the school,
district, and town.

◦ Parenting is hard, but you must do

the best you can for your children
◦ Micheal's educational needs are
important. It needed to be valued by
his parents AND his educators. 
Sources:
◦ School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts. (n.d.).
Oyez. Retrieved April 29, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/84-433

◦ Rehberg, M. L. (2020, April 22). School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts
Department of Education. Retrieved April 29, 2020, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/School-Committee-of-the-Town-of-Burlington-v-Massachusetts-Depa
rtment-of-Education

◦ Murdick, N. L., Gartin, B. C., & Fowler, G. (2014). Special education law. Boston: Pearson.