News of last week’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of an Oregon special needs student whose parents sought reimbursement for the cost of private schooling was quickly knocked off the front page by higher profile end-of-term decisions. But school districts here and throughout the nation will be studying this 6-3 ruling for months to come, trying to determine just how far they’re going to have to stretch already tight budgets.
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has always mandated that school districts reimburse the cost of private schooling when public schools do not provide the needed programs. But a 1997 amendment to the law limited reimbursement to students “who previously received special education” in public schools that offered special education. Last week’s decision removed that limitation. It said a school district may have to pay for the private schooling of special needs students who had never made use of programs offered by the district.
The decision could prove costly for many public school districts, no question. Indeed, this concern was expressed by the dissenting justices. Justice David Souter, who was joined in the dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote: “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. 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.”
Souter’s point is well-taken. However, in this case, the Forest Grove School District appears to have failed the family with regard to offering a satisfactory alternative. It evaluated the teen for learning disabilities and determined that he didn’t qualify as a special needs student. He was diagnosed as having special needs only after his parents had put him in a private school at the cost of $5,200 per month. The school district refused to reimburse the family for the private schooling, arguing that they first needed to back up and try the district’s special needs program.
It was a difficult case, but we think the court got it right. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion, “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.”
Still, the additional burden this opinion could place on taxpayers is worrisome. But it doesn’t have to be that way — not if the federal government would begin to live up to its pledge to more adequately fund the IDEA’s mandate. Congress committed more than a decade ago to covering at least 40 percent of the additional costs of teaching children with special needs. Currently, the federal government funds just 18.6 percent of what teaching children with special needs costs local school districts.
Congress needs to step up, and soon. The court’s more liberal interpretation of the special education mandate should serve as a wake-up call.
Source: The Daily News
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has always mandated that school districts reimburse the cost of private schooling when public schools do not provide the needed programs. But a 1997 amendment to the law limited reimbursement to students “who previously received special education” in public schools that offered special education. Last week’s decision removed that limitation. It said a school district may have to pay for the private schooling of special needs students who had never made use of programs offered by the district.
The decision could prove costly for many public school districts, no question. Indeed, this concern was expressed by the dissenting justices. Justice David Souter, who was joined in the dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote: “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. 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.”
Souter’s point is well-taken. However, in this case, the Forest Grove School District appears to have failed the family with regard to offering a satisfactory alternative. It evaluated the teen for learning disabilities and determined that he didn’t qualify as a special needs student. He was diagnosed as having special needs only after his parents had put him in a private school at the cost of $5,200 per month. The school district refused to reimburse the family for the private schooling, arguing that they first needed to back up and try the district’s special needs program.
It was a difficult case, but we think the court got it right. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion, “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.”
Still, the additional burden this opinion could place on taxpayers is worrisome. But it doesn’t have to be that way — not if the federal government would begin to live up to its pledge to more adequately fund the IDEA’s mandate. Congress committed more than a decade ago to covering at least 40 percent of the additional costs of teaching children with special needs. Currently, the federal government funds just 18.6 percent of what teaching children with special needs costs local school districts.
Congress needs to step up, and soon. The court’s more liberal interpretation of the special education mandate should serve as a wake-up call.
Source: The Daily News
No comments:
Post a Comment