« Ind. Courts - More on: "State lawyers ask for $109 million judgment in Pastrick case" | Main | Environment - "Justices Say Waste Can Be Dumped in Lake" »
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Courts - "SCOTUS Affirms Reimbursement for Special Education"
Updating this ILB entry from yesterday, Tamar Lewin of the NY Times has a story today on the implications of the decision. Some quotes:
In a decision that could help disabled students obtain needed services and cost school districts millions of dollars, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents of special-education students may seek government reimbursement for private school tuition, even if they have never received special-education services in public school. * * *The NYT provides this link to the opinion in Forest Grove v. T.A.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.”
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 23, 2009 10:18 AM
Posted to Courts in general