Supreme Court Case on Special Education

Supreme Court Rules on special education

I listened to this pod cast several times and each time I became even more frustrated listening to the events of the case and even more frustrated when I researched specific details of the case on the internet.  I think both the parents and the school district are to blame.  The issue I have is the Forest Grove School District tested T.A. for special education and his parents were aware of the results and agreed with the school’s findings of his ineligibility of IDEA.  Then only after TA regressed in high school, his junior year did they not like the outcome of the lack of placement in special education. TA’s parents did not request another series of testing at that time; instead they spent $5,000 a month to have TA acquire his education at Mount Bachelor Private School.  The outcome: suing the Forest Grove School District for $65,000 for tuition.  I am going to discuss both sides; the parents and the school district in the case and include my opinion on the information that I read on the case.  First of all, I must state that this is a very controversial case concerning the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and Free Appropriate Education Guidelines (FAPE) plus all of the other non-negotiable factors involved with TA, his parents and the school district.

According to IDEA, it states that school s that receive federal funding must provide a “free appropriate education” (FAPE) available to all qualifying children with disabilities residing in the state and it also requires specific procedures for identifying students for special education with IEP’s and delivering appropriate services to those qualified students.  In T.A.’s case, “he was tested and found ineligible according to school staff for special education services.  If, however, the school district did not test TA or if they did not offer services to him after he was declared eligible for special education then the circumstances do fall under IDEA.  Another contributing factor, according to court documents, TA was using drugs, running away from home and seeking psychological and medical help (several trips to the emergency room)”   (n.d.) retrieved from opb.org/article/5276_supreme_court_backs_family_forest_grove_specialed_case/ .   One blogger, SR61, a parent who has a son also with ADHD states that “drug abuse is a personal choice and many times is abused by children and used as an escape to the real problem”.  Yes, it is a personal choice but not an escape to take advantage of IDEA and its services.

The next issue that concerns me is the fact that TA’s parents decided after TA’s junior year in high school to place him into a “Private School’ setting to help him with his attention deficit disorder.  However, TA’s parents did not inform the school district of the move prior to leaving Forest Grove Schools.  Therefore, TA was unilaterally placed in a private school against the school districts findings of TA’s assessment results.  According to Justice Souter, the Court’s decision of TA will be subject to manipulation of wealthy parents.  In another words, parents with sound financial resources (TA’s parents paid $5,000 in tuition per month) are most likely to take advantage of the system then parents who do not have financial means to send their child to private schools and expect to get reimbursed for the tuition.  It is also stated in cases Greenland School district v. Amy N and Frank G v. Board of Education of Hyde Park that IDEA posed no categorical bar with tuition reimbursement when the student had not previously received special education and related services.  “TA did not receive any special education classes that required an IEP or 504 plan prior to enrolling in the private school.” (n.d.) retrieved from http://oregon live.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2009/06/us_supreme_court_rules_against.html.

My next topic of concern is the school district and it’s mishandling of TA’s educational needs.  I agree with TA’s attorney, Mary Broadhurst, who stated that if the school had just made very basic accommodations for TA then this would not have reached the Supreme Court (n.d.) retrieved from http://news.opb.org/article/5276_supreme_court_backs_family_forest_grove_specialed_case/ .   I do think there was a breakdown of communication with TA’s teachers, Guidance Counselor’s, School Administrators, evaluating team, district and parents when it came down to testing and retesting.  If the school would have been proactive and suggested to TA’s parents that retesting might be an option after TA’s lack of improvement in classes and test scores, then this might have been an easier case for the school district to win.  However, according to Angela Hungerford, who represents Forest Grove School District, “the parents were in fact a part of the evaluation process and agreed with the decision not to place TA in special education – maybe more testing might have been beneficial” (n.d.) retrieved from www.onthedocket.org/cases/2008/forest_grove_school_district_v_+/  .  I do think that even though the parents were involved and agreed with this decision that Forest Grove needed to be more cautious with TA’s attention deficit disorder and more knowledgeable of the specifics of IDEA.

 In conclusion, this is a very controversial case.  I really think that it could go either way for both parties involved; parents and the Forest Grove School District. After reading all the research, TA’s parents do have a valid case, however, if they would have communicated with the school or even requested additional testing for TA specifically on ADHD either with the school or utilized outside sources prior to enrolling into a private school then maybe this case would not have gone this far.  I also believe that the school is also at fault for letting TA slip through the cracks and not being proactive in providing a learning environment where TA could have been successful whether he needed special education or not.  Based on all of the information on the case, I think that the Forest Grove School District should not be held responsible for TA’s tuition.  What I am afraid of is that this case is going to take another 5 years to decide an outcome and thousands and thousands more public education tax dollars are being spent to decide whether or not a private education is going to be reimbursed that could have been prevented by both the school district and TA’s parents.

Additional Reference(s)

Lewin, T. (2009, June 22). Court affirms reimbursement for special education. The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/education/23special.html

Paul, C. (2008, September 14). Forest Grove asks Supreme Court to settle special education case. The Oregoneon, Retrieved from http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/forest_grove_asks_us_supreme_c.html