|
July 1, 2009 • Vol. XXXIII • No.1A
|
Page
U.S. Supreme Court:
|
|
According to a U.S. Supreme Court decision released June 22, Forest Grove School District v. T.A., the parents of a classified child may seek tuition reimbursement even where the district had not previously provided special education services to the child, so long as the private placement is appropriate. In Forest Grove, T.A attended the Oregon public schools from kindergarten through the winter of his junior year in high school. Throughout his attendance, T.A. experienced academic difficulties. When those difficulties worsened during ninth grade, his mother had the district evaluate T.A. for a learning disability. That evaluation revealed that he did not qualify for special education services. T.A.’s performance continued to suffer and his mother sought a private evaluation. That private evaluation diagnosed T.A. as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and from a number of disabilities related to learning and memory. T.A.’s mother promptly enrolled him in a private school and sought tuition reimbursement from the district. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement to parents where two conditions are met: the district did not make a free appropriate public education available and the child had previously received special education services under the board’s authority. The school district denied reimbursement because T.A. had never received special education services at all, let alone under board authority. The Court determined that the purpose of the IDEA was to ensure that all children with disabilities have a free public education available to them that emphasizes services designed to meet their unique needs. Keeping this overarching intent in mind, the Court reasoned that Congress could not have intended to give parents the right to litigate when the district’s special education services were not appropriate, but deprive parents of that right when special education services were denied altogether. Therefore, the Court determined that T.A. was entitled to tuition reimbursement because the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education, even though he had never received special education services under board authority. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Forest Grove echoes the reasoning in a New Jersey federal court case. In D.L. and K.L., o/b/o J.L., v. Springfield Board of Education, J.L., a child suffering from autism, was receiving 20 hours per week of special education services from his day-care provider. When he was seeking to enroll in the local district, the district offered the same services, but offered only 10 hours per week. J.L.’s parents rejected the district’s placement and enrolled him in a private school. The parents then sought tuition reimbursement without ever having enrolled J.L. in the local school district. The District Court of New Jersey determined that parents should not be obligated to try out an inadequate program in order to preserve their right to tuition reimbursement. The Court remanded the matter and ordered the district to demonstrate that the 10 hour program was adequate to meet J.L.’s special education needs. Forest Groveand D.L. and K.L. o/b/o J.L., demonstrate that local school districts may have an obligation to special education students even where the district has determined not to deliver services, or to deliver reduced services. |
|
|
Copyright © 2009 New Jersey School Boards Association. All rights reserved. |
|