Title: Cut and Run? Tuition Reimbursement and the 1997 IDEA Amendments
Abstract: Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484 (2009). I. INTRODUCTION Special advocates in United States face financial and legal barriers everyday in their quest to uphold rights of special needs children in public schools. Not until 1975, when Congress overhauled nation's law by creating Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), (1) did government acknowledge discrimination against special needs students in classroom. Fifteen years after its initial passage, EHA was renamed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and has since been amended to expand financial and legal opportunities for disabled children. (2) The most significant change to IDEA occurred in 1997, when congressional evaluation of law found that [e]ducational achievement for children with disabilities, while improving, is still less than satisfactory. (3) This Note addresses challenges that courts face in balancing legislative purpose of IDEA with its practical application. At its core, IDEA was enacted to preserve right of all children to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), (4) including special needs students who, under law, have the right to sit in same classrooms, to learn same skills, [and] to dream same dreams as their fellow Americans. (5) At same time, IDEA and its amendments emphasize that [need] a greater voice in their children's education. (6) These goals can create a disconnect between what schools must provide to special needs students and what parents wish schools would provide, and it is often up to courts to strike a balance between two. The last in a series of three landmark decisions, (7) Forest Grove School District v. T.A. clearly shows that U.S. Supreme Court favors rights of parents of special needs children over autonomy of schools. (8) Prior to Forest Grove, parents could recover tuition for private placements when their local school tried, and failed, to provide adequate services to their child. (9) However, in Forest Grove, Court broadened that right considerably, holding that parents can now request reimbursement for private tuition even when public school did not previously provide special services to student. (10) Despite clear win for parents, Supreme Court did attempt to mollify schools' loss, noting that courts still must weigh equities of a case before making a final determination on total reimbursement due to parents. (11) This caveat should--as it did in Forest Grove--prevent parents who refuse to cooperate with local school districts from demanding exorbitant tuition payments. (12) The Court's dicta in support of schools, after a long discussion of parental rights, highlights delicate balance that Court faced in interpreting IDEA. In addition to weighing interests of schools and parents, IDEA also embraces special needs students' placement in traditional classrooms. A primary impetus in passing legislation was to integrate disabled children into classroom. (13) However, interpretations like Forest Grove, while giving parents greater control over their child's academics, may also promote resegregation of disabled children by facilitating unilateral parental placements of children into private, special needs schools. (14) In that respect, Forest Grove holding creates a confusing double standard: it prevents public school districts from removing children to special needs schools but allows parents, subsidized by public funds, to enroll their children in private placements without even attempting to avail themselves of their public schools' existing accommodations. This Note explores original purpose of IDEA and compares it to Court's interpretation of language, which emphasizes specific statutory requirements rather than broad intent of law. …
Publication Year: 2010
Publication Date: 2010-09-22
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot