Supreme Court to Address Meeting the Needs of Special-Education Students

New York Times ^ | May 30, 2009 | Tamar Lewin

[reaganaut1]

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 before the court involves a struggling Oregon high school student, identified in court documents only as T.A., whose parents enrolled him in a $5,200-a-month residential school after he became a heavy marijuana user and ran away from home.

Although his guidance counselor had noticed his difficulties and arranged an evaluation, the boy, who had angry outbursts and a history of behavioral problems, was found ineligible for special-education services at his high school in the Forest Grove School District.

“The district evaluation looked only at whether he had learning disabilities,” said Mary Broadhurst, the lawyer representing the boy. “Even though staff notes mentioned suspected attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, they never evaluated him for it. So they refused to help.”

Forest Grove, in its effort to reverse an appellate court decision ordering it to pay the boy’s tuition, argues that precisely because the boy never received special-education services in public school, he is not eligible for tuition reimbursement under the federal disabilities law.

Disability rights advocates, backed by the federal Department of Education, argue that the law must allow such reimbursement, even for children who were never in special education, or risk forcing them to waste precious learning time languishing in classrooms where they are not getting an appropriate education.

School districts, though, contend that paying for private school for students whose parents enrolled them without district consent — and without previous eligibility for special-education services — diverts precious resources from the millions of special-education students served in the public schools.

[reaganaut1]

It does not make sense for the taxpayers to spend $5200 a MONTH trying to educate a "heavy marijuana" user when the money could be better spent on children who want to learn. Entitlement spending tends to grow without bounds, and special education is no exception to this rule.

[doodad]

I work for a company that provides goods and services to special needs children as a large part of our business.

This, however, is a poor example of whether tuition should be reimbursed for kids enrolled outside of traditional classrooms.

[9YearLurker]

What? Just because like now that the feds are now rewarding anyone who doesn’t pay his mortgage, an eighth of us aren’t paying our mortgage; the right ruling could have parents sending their kids out to act up and smoke weed—so they could be sent to a $50K/year school?

[The Sons of Liberty]

The schools already provide a very wide range of programs and alternatives. If parents elect to remove their child and enroll them elsewhere, that is their choice, but as a taxpayer don't expect me to bankroll that choice.

With this particular case, perhaps the marijuana user should've been incarcerated for breaking the drug laws. He could then avail himself to programs provided in the prison system.

[ClearCase_guy]

public schools must reimburse parents of special-education students for private-school tuition.

Public schools should reimburse all parents who choose to pay private-school tuition.

Isn't it illegal to have one set of laws for "special people" and another set for the rest of us?

[PLMerite]

Education funds should not be wasted upon those whom they will not benefit.

[Scarchin]

Special Education is out of control in this country. We teachers have to tread lightly because parents threaten lawsuits if their bratty snowflakes aren’t happy and getting A’s for nothing. Thus - public education is an ocean of mediocrity.

[TalonDJ]

but as a taxpayer don't expect me to bankroll that choice.

As a tax payer I am already bank rolling every crumbcruncher who's parents have dumped them in the government school system. What difference does it make if I pay for them to be at that school or some other school. Either way we are paying. I want to see precident for parents getting paid back if they don't want to put their kids in public school.

[ml/nj]

This decision might actually impact plans for socialized medicine here. If it is ruled that the government must reimburse people for "services" (schooling, in this case) they normally provide, but cannot because of the specialized nature of the service required then it is hard to see how this would not extend to other "services."

ML/NJ

[TalonDJ]

Education funds should not be wasted upon those whom they will not benefit.

Easy for you to say. But who get's to decide? Do you want to see some sort of panel that decides if your child is educable enough to warrant the money. Sort of blows the whole point of universal education doesn't it?

[ClearCase_guy]

I agree with that. My mother was very active with special needs kids for decades. She was a super Liberal and was always trying to do good. And she often did -- many special needs kids do benefit from services that are provided.

But towards the end of her life, my mother commented: "Some of these people get one-on-one support for 20 years and at the end of that time, after all that money has been spent on them, they still can't even tie their shoes. We ought to just put them in a room, give them food, make them comfortable, then spend our money on people who can actually benefit from it."

[ml/nj]

I'm curious. When parents have a particularly brilliant child for whom the common schools do not work, and these kids wind up at Harvard or Princeton when they are 12, does the government ever wind up paying for any of these students?

ML/NJ

[PLMerite]

“Sort of blows the whole point of universal education doesn’t it?”

When I was in school 30+ years ago, they “mainstreamed” Special Education students. The guy I had in several of my classes didn’t learn anything, just sat in the back of the room playing with himself unless some of the other kids wanted to goad him into making a disturbance.

This certainly isn’t true of all special needs kids but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Universal Eduation certainly was never intended to include literally “everyone.”

[hanamizu]

It is my understanding, as a teacher in a public school, that according to law, special ed kids have first priority to the school district’s resources. If a district has to lay off teachers of ‘regular’ students to provide for special ed needs, so be it. In addition, if necessary, we have to provide ed services 12 months per year until the age of 21 (instead of 9 months and age 18 for everyone else).

A local district had to pay to pave the driveway to the home of a student with cerebral palsy so that the special bus could pick him up every day. My district paid the father of a wheelchair-bound boy to drive him to and from school since we didn’t have a wheelchair capable bus.

Most people have no idea of how much power the parents of ‘special needs’ students have over the local district. The only saving grace is that most special needs parents don’t know this either, but if they do, watch out!

And to answer a question later in the thread, gifted students do *not* get the benefits of ‘special needs’ students.

[jimt]

I question whether bad behavior falls in the area of “special education”. Down’s Syndrome kids, crippled kids, yeah. But a bad actor ?

Now they call them “behaviorally challenged” here and keep them separate from true “special ed” kids, as they’d eat the special ed kids alive.

When I was going to school, the “behaviorally challenged” either straightened up after a few whacks from the gym teacher or principal - and/or suspensions - or they went to reform school.

[jimt]

BTW, nothing in the article says he was retarded or autistic, or had tested way below grade level or had low intelligence.

Single parent family, maybe ? Lack of discipline and role models at home ?

[MamaTexan]

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.

Our local school district is advertising a position for an Occupational Therapist for the special education division. It pays $218.41 a DAY [minimum] for 184 day work 'year'. I'm sorry, but why do special education kids need an occupational therapist?

The State is required to PROVIDE a free education. It should be up to the parents to see to it the kids can benefit from the education that is offered. The State should NOT be required to fund a tailor made education for every single child.

I have a friend with twin girls. One is severely disabled, the other less so. The local school district simply passed the severely disabled child through, but failed the less disabled one. According to them, she 'should' have been able to do the work. My friend asked them to hold the passing child back so she could be with her sister, but they refused, so she decided to homeschool instead.

Not everyone is cut out for the public school system. Some from ability and others from disposition. Compulsory education past the eighth grade for those who would be better off learning a skill does not educate the disruptive party, it just disrupts the education of others. Unless society realizes this, educational expenses will continue to grow exponentially until no one can afford any kind of education at all.

Just my 2 cents.