Add to favorites Examiner Bio

New Supreme Court decision woefully fails to address burden of special education costs and services

 

On June 23, 2009, The United States Supreme Court made its ruling in the matter of Forest Grove v. T.A. Originating in Oregon, this case made headlines when the family of a disabled boy with A.D.H.D. sued the public school for reimbursement of tuition resulting from their child's private school education. The family alleged that the public school failed to provide services and evaluations under the federal act called Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).

 

Some brief background to note about this particular case is that the public school suspected that the student might have had exhibited signs of A.D.H.D., but did not share their suspicions with T.A.'s parents.  T.A. began using marijuana regularly and ran away from home, "and he exhibited noticeable personality changes."  In response to T.A.'s troubling new behavior, T.A.'s parents removed him from his public high school and enrolled him in a private school designed for students with behavioral and academic problems.  

 

In bringing this case for legal action, reimbursement of the private education tuition was being sought by T.A.'s family.  The public school district argued that T.A., who was not receiving special education services at the public school level, could not seek alternative private education at the expense of the public school district.  The school district further contended that T.A.'s family's legal action gives incentive to parents who want to bypass other remedies and simply opting for private school placement.    

 

On Monday, in a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that students with disabilities can seek reimbursement for private schools tuition even if they did not try the public school's special education programs first.

 

The dissenting Supreme Court opinion in this case was written by Justice David Souter, and he was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.  The dissenting opinion pointed out that the IDEA codes called for private education options to be reserved for students who had already been receiving special education services in public schools.

 

It is quite possible that the dissenting Supreme Court Justices failed to make the most relevant and appropriate evaluation in their report.  In the future, it could be entirely possible that a landmark Supreme Court case could reverse this decision and the exposure to states with respect to IDEA services, funding and resulting lawsuits.

 

IDEA [20 USC 1400 et seq.] is an important set of laws with respect to outlining the definitions of a disabled student and the requisite services to be provided for the students in which it aspires to protect.  However, IDEA is a federal act.  It is not constitutional for the federal government to require that these services be provided and funded by the individual states.  These services, as defined by the IDEA, are illegally forced on the individual states to fund. 

 

The 10th Amendment of the constitution, prohibits the federal government from imposing federal acts on individual states. In fact, in 1992, the Supreme Court did make a ruling in a case alleging a violation of the 10th Amendment with similar facts. The Supreme Court case entitled, New York v. The United States of America (1992), 505 U.S. 14, challenged a federally mandated Act called the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The federal government obligated the state to bare the cost of disposing its waste as prescribed in this Act. The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, found that this federally mandated program violated the states' rights under the 10th Amendment and found in favor of the Plaintiff, New York.

 

Justice O'Connor, one of the most liberal and balanced Justices of all time, found that the federal government can encourage but cannot mandate conditions for a federal Act and that the federal government cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations by forcing the funding.

 

However, IDEA does exactly that.  It mandates and compels states to enforce a federal act and it obligates the funding by states and their school districts. 
  

In IDEA section 1400(c)(6), it states that "local education agencies are responsible for providing the education for students with disabilities, but that the Federal Government will have a role [emphasis added] in assisting the state and local education agencies."  In other words, the Act itself admits that it is to be enforced and funded by the states and school districts but the the federal government will only have a role in helping.  Therefore, the federal government is willfully imposing this requirement on the states in violation of the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

 

Reportedly, school districts in California and perhaps other states are struggling to retain their accreditation because every year it must show solvency for the next three years.  School districts in California struggle to meet the demands of their requirements in general.  Add now the IDEA expenses.  I recently profiled a small school district in Southern California that has paid, out-of-pocket, the sum of $12.5 million [deficit] from IDEA expenditures.  This school district is laying off nearly 100 teachers, who could have had their jobs saved with merely $1.3 million.  Furthermore, school districts pick up the tab for lawsuit judgments and settlements resulting from IDEA complaints.  IDEA's goal is to help students, but it has also burdened states, school districts and other students. 

 

Why hasn't the government taken responsibility for IDEA services and funding?  The IDEA expenditures have proven to have had a negative fiscal impact on school districts.  This federal Act needs to be governed and funded entirely by the federal government.