AP: (Supreme) Court to Hear Special Ed Tuition Case

[Eugene]

Court to Hear Special Ed Tuition Case

Monday, February 26, 2007


(02-26) 08:02 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether taxpayers must
reimburse parents who enrolled their learning-disabled student in private
school after deciding public schools were unable to meet the child's needs.

New York City's board of education asked the justices to take the case
after a federal appeals court said tuition reimbursement is available to the
parents under the Individuals With Disabilities Act.

Lawyers for the boy's parents said the special education program proposed
by the public school system was inadequate to meet the child's needs,
prompting them to send him to a private school. The parents say that
under federal law, they may challenge inappropriate proposals and obtain
reimbursement for the costs of placement in private school.

The child is identified in court papers only as Gilbert F.

The case is Board of Education v. Tom F. on behalf of Gilbert F., 06-637.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/26/national/w080250S57.DTL

[mike_c]

1. taxes for support of public services should be for the public good...

...not the individual good. In the case of public education, if the parents of disabled children should be reimbursed because the public schools don't meet the needs of their kids, what of the parents of kids who don't succeed in public schools for other reasons? What of childless taxpayers? Or taxpayers whose children are grown and no longer in school?

I think the taxes we pay for public services are the cost of living in America, in our states, towns, and so on. Sure, the providers of those services have a responsibility to provide them in the best manner possible, but we all pay the costs of maintaining the whole system of public services, not just the ones that benefit us individually. At least, that's the way I think it should be.

[Ilsa]

2. Perhaps you don't understand how poor the special ed services

can be in some school districts, especially really small ones. Some of them don't have the resources to pay a properly trained teacher or provide the envirionment, both physical and academic, for these kids. Sometimes the individual's good is what is important to prevent total reliance on society in the future.

As far as the other kids who don't succeed for other reasons, then that should be addressed, but not under IDEA.

My son's school has paid for one of the most severe cases to attend a special school in conjunction with the family's insurance. It was necessary and appropriate given his level of disability, and he has flourished in his new environment. That is benefitting everyone, not just him. Whereas my son who has autism, severe as it is, is being being taught and trained using very appropriate techniques in our district.

You said: "What of childless taxpayers? Or taxpayers whose children are grown and no longer in school?"

I guess if we want good medical care, services, etc, we all must be willing to participate in the education of the public for the public good.

[mike_c]

3. your last comment was precisely my point...

...and I would apply it equally to all members of society. For example, I don't have any children in school, public or otherwise, yet I'm happy to pay taxes in support of public education. I think it would be ludicrous to seek reimbursement of my taxes because the public schools are not providing services directly beneficial to me-- and the same goes for the parents of children who are not well served by the public schools for whatever reasons. They too benefit indirectly from life among educated peers, and from the other services an educated population can provide.

I do think that we need to have more dialog about what services it is reasonable to expect public schools to provide, and if they are not meeting those needs then THAT needs to be addressed. But that's a different matter from the one in the OP, which, if I understand it correctly, is that the parents of Gilbert F. deserve to be reimbursed their support of public education because the public schools did not adequately serve their child. In other words, because the public system did not provide them with sufficient personal good.

[mopinko]

5. i think you misunderstand

they are not seeking their taxes back. they are seeking reimbursement of tuition they paid out of pocket for their son. they believe that he has disabilities that require special education.
these sort of things are done all the time. the process is long and frustrating. sounds like the parents decided to place the kid and fight it out for reimbursement. usually, you know when you go this route that you might get stuck. but sometimes, you just have to do what is right for your kid and cross your fingers.

[mike_c]

7. ahh, you're correct-- I misunderstood, and I do agree that the public...

...should support the educational needs of kids with disabilities-- preferably within the public education system, but by whatever means necessary. Thanks for helping me see my misunderstanding.

[Ilsa]

11. It's okay. It's very complicated stuff.

I get a notice of my rights as a parent all the time, and I still barely know all of my rights in this regard, and they are extensive. The paperwork alone is a nightmare for the schools. The real challenge is to find the right way to teach children with disabilities who require an Individualized Education Plan.

And you wouldn't believe what the states are doing with NCLB on these kids: they are requiring them to be tested like the others. It frustrates administrators who have a large locus of disabled children, because their school will always look like they are underperforming.

[Ilsa]

8. Exactly. The first thing the school district does is say "No"

on the reimbursement and hope the parents don't have the will or means to take them to court. But if the child has a bona fide diagnosed disability, under IDEA, the district has to cover the private education.

Of course with these judges, you never know what they are going to do to families with disabled children. Rightwingers only like kids if they haven't been born yet.

[Ilsa]

6. I didn't read that in the OP. The parents are seeking

tuition reimbursement for the child's private facility, not the taxes they are paying for public school, and the school district has decided to defy IDEA and not pay for the special education.

Once again, this is about a school being able to help a child reach some basic milestones, something I think you'd agree is reasonable, which benefits EVERYONE down the road. Some public schools are not able to do that.

If disabled children are not entitiled to a free public education in the US, then we are going to see some monstrous changes towards persons with disabilities, especially those that are least able to speak up for themselves.

[mike_c]

9. yep, my misunderstanding....

:blush:

[ninkasi]

4. I agree regarding taxes, Ilsa

My husband and I are retired, and haven't had a child in public school for 20 years. I am very concerned, though, about the quality of education all children receive, because those children are our future. This country has been on a disastrous course of dumbing down everything for far too long. It's the reason, in my opinion, that so many people listen to Rush Limbaugh, and watch Faux news. They never learned critical thinking skills.

We need to have our society well educated, and the first step is proper funding of the public schools, and paying teachers decent wages. I also view the constant demand to cut taxes, especially of the wealthy, as nothing but cutting the social safety net. I cringe every time I hear the words "tax relief", as if the rich needed any relief. They can afford private schools for their children anyway.

One last observation. Providing a quality education to children with special needs might make them more capable of being self supporting in the future. Society is going to pay one way or another, so paying for their education is probably the smartest move to make.

[jwirr]

10. First, you have to understand that the money used to educate

special ed is separate from money used for education in general. It is money transferred from use in institutions over the years as these clients were placed in local communities. Instead of custodial care in the institution they now receive a variety of services in their own communities (in good states). If it is taken away from them in the schools it will be used for other forms of care. It will not go into the general education funds.

Second, it sounds like a voucher program to me and will hurt the programs in states that are giving good services more than it will the states that do not use it right. Here in MN we have excellent programs that were started by parents who did everything they could to get the public schools to accept their children. To back up on that because one state is not fulfilling their obligation would be disastrous.

Third, why are they not suing the state for not providing the services instead of trying to set up a separate system? We had a parent who's child was in a wheel chair and they sued the local school board for accessibility? The whole school was rehabilitated. It seem to me that the issue here is not services but instead public vs. private.

[mopinko]

12. afaik, in many places private schools are utilized

because it is more efficient for the small number of kids that need a particular service. but usually that is already contracted, and kids are just sent there if needed. sounds like that was not an option in this case.
a single school district might only have a few kids who need particular services. even here in chicago, there are small numbers of kids who need some specialized service. my kid was in a therapeutic day school. it was contracted with cps for a long time. it was a jewish school. half yeshiva, half therapeutic. for our region-1/5th of the city- there were a half dozen high school kids. here probably should have been a couple dozen, but....

this case makes me nervous. i am sure these idiots would like to dispose of these "expensive" kids. putting them where you think they need to be, then fighting about who pays is the escape valve that keeps the whole process honest. otherwise these bureaucrats would drag their feet until it is too late.

[jwirr]

14. Exactly. I have a daughter who is severely disabled and attended

public schools for 21 years. When there was a special problem that could not be provided by the local school district they contracted with larger schools and bused her to them. As an adult she is now attending a work shop. Minnesota has recently changed the work requirement to attend these adult works shops so that people like her can be served even when they cannot be trained to do a job. She is doing fine. Does a lot of crafts with her one-to-one. I understand why the parents would be suing but I also worry about wrecking the programs we, the parents, have worked so hard for.

[AwareOne]

13. Use the public program or pay for the private one yourself.

This is just another one of the thousand wounds the Republicans and the religious right have inflicted on public education in an effort to bleed it to death and replace the whole thing with private, for profit education. They are trying every trick in the book to get their hands on public money for private education, vouchers, opportunity scholarships, charter schools, tuition reimbursement, call it what ever you want, it's all privatization. The Republican supreme court will rule for the parents and fling the doors wide open for all to take money from our treasury to pay for their children's private education.