Supreme Court Case - special ed, June 2009

After T.A. attended public school from kindergarten until the spring of his junior year, his parents removed him and placed him in private school. Although T.A. "experienced difficulty paying attention in class," depended on extensive help from his family to complete his schoolwork, and was evaluated by the school district for a disability, he never received special education services while enrolled in public school. When school staff members evaluated T.A. during internal meetings that did not involve his parents, they considered the possibility that T.A. had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD. Instead of testing him for ADHD, however, T.A. was formally evaluated for a learning disability, and the school's psychologists and educational specialists unanimously concluded that he had no such disability. Accordingly, the school psychologist's report indicated that T.A. was not eligible for special education services under the IDEA, though he may have been eligible for accommodations under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The school district never followed up on either the suggestion that T.A. had ADHD or that he might be eligible for § 504 accommodations.  When T.A. continued to experience difficulty in school, his mother contacted school administrators multiple times expressing her concerns and proposing that the school reevaluate him.  The school district told T.A.'s mother that a subsequent evaluation would not likely find T.A. eligible for special education services.  The district offered no other assistance. T.A. continued to fall behind in school and, in 2002, he began using marijuana and "exhibit[ing] noticeable personality changes."  In 2003, T.A. ran away from home and ultimately ended up in a hospital emergency room.  His parents then hired a psychologist, who "diagnosed T.A. with ADHD, depression, math disorder, and cannabis abuse."  Upon the psychologist's advice, in March of 2003 T.A.'s parents removed him from public school and ultimately enrolled him in Mount Bachelor Academy, a private school intended for students with special needs.  Four days after placing T.A. in private school, his parents obtained a lawyer who advised them to request a hearing under the IDEA and to seek an order commanding the school to evaluate T.A. for disabilities.  The team of specialists assembled to evaluate T.A. "acknowledged T.A.'s learning difficulties, his diagnosis of ADHD, and his depression," but nonetheless concluded that T.A. did not qualify for special education services under the IDEA "because those diagnoses did not have a severe effect on T.A.'s educational performance." Following the school district's evaluation, an administrative hearing officer concluded that T.A. "was disabled and therefore eligible for special education under the IDEA and [§] 504."  The hearing officer further concluded that the school district had failed to provide T.A. a free appropriate public education, and accordingly was required to reimburse T.A.'s parents for sending him to Mount Bachelor, which cost $5,200 per month. ("Lessons learned from," 2009) The issue in the Forest Grove case was whether a 1997 amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (or IDEA) prohibited private-school tuition reimbursement for students who never received special-education services in public school. The amendment says tuition may be available for students with disabilities “who previously received special-education” services in public school, if the school did not make a free and appropriate public education (or FAPE) available in a timely manner. Forest Grove, backed by school-boards associations across the country, argued that the amendment precluded reimbursement for those, like T. A., who never received special-education services in public school. But the high court, in a 6-to-3 ruling, rejected that argument. “We conclude that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for the cost of private special education services when a school district fails to provide a FAPE and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public school,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion. Justice Stevens said the school district’s interpretation would produce a result “bordering on the irrational.” “It would be strange for the act to provide a remedy, as all agree it does, where a school district offers a child inadequate special-education services but to leave parents without relief in the more egregious situation in which the school district unreasonably denies a child access to such services altogether,” he wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.In his dissent, Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said that the disabilities law was designed to promote cooperation between school districts and families in developing an individualized education plan for each disabled student. The dissent also discussed the high costs of private-school placements. “Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote. “Given the burden of private school placement, it makes good sense to require parents to try to devise a satisfactory alternative within the public schools.”(Lewin, 2009)   

I support the Supreme Court decision and agree with Justice Stevens, as I strongly feel that the school district did not do their best to help T.A. They did not include the parents in their meetings; they did not share the fact that they suspected ADHD with the parents. The Special Ed teachers are the professionals who can sense issues that a student may have versus a parent who is distressed with his child’s inability to be successful. If this information was shared, the parents may have requested an ADHD evaluation from their doctor, and all this turmoil in T.A’s life could have been avoided. As stated above the mother contacted the school administrators multiple times expressing her concerns and proposing that the school revaluate him. T.A. continued o fall behind in school and eventually went downhill. When the district offered no assistance the mother had no choice but to make a decision that she thought was best for her child. It is imperative that an administrator takes active interest in special-Ed cases to avoid any similar situations. The administrator has to be aware of all the facts and make sure that there is good communication between the professionals at the school and the parent. Special Ed teacher’s commitment to helping the students should be foremost and their goal should be to ensure success for each student. Ron Hager, senior staff attorney at the National Disability Rights Network, describes five areas of concern that parents should keep in mind in light of the ruling:

Know Your Rights "School districts have an obligation to locate and evaluate children to determine if they do have a disability," Hager says. "The IDEA law envisions that the parents are equal participants with the school district in developing the child's program, but parents frequently don't know what their rights are.”

Get Involved "School districts have an obligation to ensure that children with disabilities receive an appropriate education based on their individual needs," Hager says. "It's not one size fits all. The parents should be looking at, 'Are my child's needs being met?'

Question the Evaluation "The other thing that's critical for parents to know is when the school has done its evaluations, if the parents disagree with the results of those evaluations, they have the right to an independent evaluation at the district's expense," Hager says.

Be Wary of Narrow Criteria "The other thing that happens ... is that the school districts have an overly narrow view of what the criteria are for special-education eligibility," Hager says. "Frequently, with a child with ADHD, they'll look at whether the child is doing well academically.”

Don't Wait to Take It to Court "Parents should appeal right away," Hager says. "Don't wait for four years. But many parents do, because they're frustrated, they don't know, or they assume the school is telling them the right thing. (Miners, 2009)

Under the IDEA, a school district is not liable for the cost of private special education services if it affords a child a free appropriate public education.  Accordingly, the simplest and cheapest way for school districts to avoid the cost of private school tuition reimbursement is by providing children in need of special education services with a free appropriate education in the first place.  However, if school districts fail to do so, parents must be able to turn to effective administrative and judicial procedures to ensure that their child ultimately receives the education that the IDEA guarantees. ("Lessons learned from," 2009)

Bibliographic Citations:

 Lessons learned from forest grove school district v. t.a.. (2009). [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2009/

 Lewin, T.. (2009). Court affirms reimbursement for special education. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/education/23special.html

Miners, Z.. (2009). Court ruling helps special-needs students. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2009/06/24/court-rulinghelps-special-needs