[Grovenet] Forest Grove School District before the Supremes . . .

[Allen Warren]

Sure am glad I'm not a judge . . . 

I can understand the plight of the parents.  After all, we do indeed want a good education for our children from our public school system.  But with T.A.'s situation, the private boarding school was the only option?  I'm guessing this extra info. can't be brought up in court but I'm wondering if the family or at least one parent also moved to the Prineville area to be close to the son during his time at the boarding school.  Or did they have frequent visits w/their son?

I agree our school system needs to provide a good/excellent education.  I just can't agree with T.A.'s parents enrolling T.A. in a private boarding school first then followed by the parents hiring a lawyer in order to get reimbursed for their decision.

Again, sure am glad I'm not a judge . . . 
 
Allen Warren


________________________________
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:06:46 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] Forest Grove School District before the Supremes . . .

Here's one of the first takes on the School District and special ed before the US Supreme Court - 


________________________________


High Court Justices Weigh Funding for Special Education
Tony Mauro
04-29-2009

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday waded into the contentious debate that takes place in public schools every day between parents seeking special education services for their children and school administrators who are trying to contain costs. 
As is often the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key vote in deciding Forest Grove School District v. T.A., No. 08-305, and his comments at the argument were difficult to interpret as favoring one side or the other.
At issue is whether parents must first try out the special ed program offered by the public school before they can move their child to a private school program and seek reimbursement for the tuition.
Justices seemed at turns sympathetic with parents who "can't wait years" to find the best program for their children, as Justice David H. Souter put it, and with school systems that merely require that a public school be given a chance to devise a program for the child before having to make costly reimbursements for private programs. "All they're saying is, 'give it a try,' " said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. at one point.
In the case before the Court today, a student identified only as T.A., now 23, was a public school student in Oregon. In spite of difficulties in school, he never used special education services. School officials evaluated him and suspected he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, but concluded he was not eligible for special ed.
After he experienced more serious problems and began using marijuana in 2003, T.A.'s parents took him out of the public high school and enrolled him in a residential private school where tuition was $5,200 a month. His family sought reimbursement from the school district.
At the district court level, a judge ruled that because T.A. had not used special ed services at the public school first, the statute did not allow reimbursement for the private school tuition.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that T.A. was eligible for reimbursement, in part because the public school did not offer a special ed program to him in the first place. In that circumstance, the appeals panel said "principles of equity" require that the private school tuition be paid by the public school district.
Gary Feinerman, a partner in Sidley Austin's Chicago office who argued for the Forest Grove school district in Oregon, said the language of the statute was clear that the public school program must be tried first.
But several justices suggested that rule did not seem fair if the school system, as it did with T.A., does not find the student eligible for a special ed program.
Feinerman said that under appeals processes that are in place, students in that circumstance would be offered a program on a "very tight turnaround." In fact when an administrative hearing officer in T.A.'s case found that he was entitled to special ed services at the public school, a plan was quickly devised.
David Salmons, a partner in Bingham McCutchen's Washington office who argued on behalf of the student, said students should not be penalized by a school's "wrong eligibility determinations" denying special ed services and forced to pay tuition reimbursements.
But Roberts seemed sympathetic to the schools when he said, "It's a big expense you are asking the school district to incur. ... All they are saying is 'give it a try for 10 days.' "
Assistant to the Solicitor General Eric Miller, arguing on the side of the student, said that if schools are able to deny private school reimbursement by refusing special ed services in the first place, it would "effectively be an incentive for districts to stonewall."
Tuesday's case represents the third time school districts have sought relief from the high court for what schools fear would be a sharp increase in costs for special education services. The National School Boards Association in a brief to the court said those costs "vastly exceed" the federal funding they receive under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
In 2007, Board of Education of City School Dist. of City of New York v. Tom F., 128 S. Ct. 1, raising the same issue as the case Tuesday, was docketed, briefed and argued. But shortly before the arguments, Kennedy announced without explanation that he was recusing himself from the case. A week after the case was argued, the Court affirmed the lower court ruling in favor of the student by a 4-4 vote, making it clear that Kennedy's absence from the case was key to the outcome.
Later that term, Kennedy recused in Board of Educ. of Hyde Park v. Frank G., 128 S. Ct. 436, which also raised the same issue, and the Court denied review before the case was fully briefed or argued.
Both cases were from the New York City area, where some of Kennedy's children and grandchildren live, leading to unconfirmed speculation that Kennedy recused because of some family connection to special education services.
 Copyright 2009. Incisive Media US Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.