The New York Times, in its May 31, 2009 edition, reports about an upcoming case, which could change the power dynamics in special needs education. Forest Grove School District

In a case with potential financial repercussions for school districts and families alike, the United States Supreme Court will soon decide when public schools must reimburse parents of special-education students for private-school tuition.

The case is Forest Grove School District v. T.A. On the Docket has a concise description of the facts of the case. On the Docket They succinctly state the issue:

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether federal law requires students with disabilities to first try a public program before they can claim reimbursement for the cost of a private school.

Forest Grove was preceded by the New York case, Board of Education of the City of New York v. Tom F. which, ended in a 4-4 tie because Justice Anthony Kennedy without explanation recused or took himself out of the decision. The Cornell Legal Information Institute frames the issues presented by both the New York and Oregon cases Cornell Legal Information Institute:

Question(s) presented

Does the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stating that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permits tuition reimbursement where a child has not previously received special education from a public agency, stand in direct contradiction to the plain language of 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) which authorizes tuition reimbursement to the parents of a disabled child “who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency”?

Issue

Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permit a parent to receive reimbursement for a disabled child’s private school tuition if the child has not previously received special education services from a public agency?

Facts

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), states and local school systems obtain federal funding to ensure that children with disabilities receive a “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) through “individualized education program[s]” (“IEP”) developed by the school systems. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Congress reauthorized and amended the IDEA in 1997 to clarify the obligations of public school systems to children with disabilities and to specify the rights of disabled children and their parents. Brief for Petitioner at 30. One of the 1997 Amendments provides that if the parent of a disabled child “who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency” enrolls that child in private school without the agency’s consent or referral, a court or hearing officer may order the agency to reimburse the parent for tuition costs in the event that the agency failed to make a “free appropriate public education available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii).

This case is clearly one of balance. Districts should fairly and adequately evaluate special needs children. On the other hand the question can be asked what the possible financial effect of allowing parents to place children is expensive private facilitities and seek reimbursement later will be? Two advocacy groups have information about federal law and its application. Wrightslaw and Special Needs Blogs. For a summary about what parents should know about the requirements for a special needs education Special Needs Education

The court has to balance the needs of an individual child with the idea that resources should be used to help the greatest number. How they strike that balance will be interesting. Could there be rationing of education services? The Washington state basic health plan is considering a lottery to determine which low income people get coverage. Basic Health Care Lottery The state can no longer fund all those who qualify and need health care. Ultimately, the issue to be resolved is who pays and how much?

Dr. Wilda says this about that. ©