Decision may help special ed families in Vt.
BRATTLEBORO — A U.S. Supreme Court decision this week could help Vermont families with special education students that are battling with their local school districts over out-of-district placement costs. The court on Monday voted 6-3 in support of an Oregon family who enrolled their son in a $5,200-a-month residential school and demanded that the public high school pay for the service.
Administrators in the Forest Grove school district argued that the child had not been previously diagnosed with a learning disability and therefore the district was not legally bound to pay for the education at the more expensive private school.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the majority opinion, said the Individuals With Disabilities Act requires schools to provide appropriate educational opportunities regardless of when the child’s diagnosis is determined.
Tim Palmer, executive deputy director of the Vermont Family Network, said the decision will probably not cause an increase in the number of families that ask schools to pay for expensive private education.
But Palmer said the decision will likely remain in the forefront of conversations as families and administrators try to determine the best place for the disabled students.
“I think what it does is clarify the responsibilities on the part of schools and families,” Palmer said. “What the court said is that schools have a responsibility to work with families to develop an individualized education plan that meets the needs of the student.”
The Vermont Family Network works with parents and schools on special education issues. The group stresses the collaborative process between families and districts, he said, and generally in Vermont those decisions are made in agreement.
The Supreme Court also said schools have to act in a timely manner when placing a student and Palmer said that part of the decision might have a greater impact on special education determinations.
“Schools can not delay their decisions.” he said. “What I read was that the parents felt that the district was not being responsive. The Supreme Court did not vastly expand the parents’ rights but said the law requires timeliness.”
Windham County districts continue to have some of the highest special education rates in the state, and some of that cost comes from expensive out-of-district programs.
Windham Northeast Supervisory Union recently created a new district-wide position to manage out-of-district placements.
WNESU superintendent Johanna Harpster said the court decision could make it harder for schools to keep the students within district, even if educators think that is the best place for them to be.
“What they seem to be saying is that parents don’t have to try out the schools first and that is a bit of a concern for those of us in public education,” Harpster said. “We would prefer that they try public education first before making the decision to go elsewhere.”
In the Oregon case, school psychologists tested the student, identified in the court records as T.A., but did not find that he was disabled.
It was only after the parents pulled him out and placed him in the private school that the doctors in the new school said he had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other disabilities.
His parents sued the district and the case went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sided with the parents.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week held up that decision.
Mark Oettinger, Vermont Department of Education general counsel, said the decision will help families who are not seeing eye to eye with local administrators.
“It expands the parental rights,” he said. “I think it came as a bit of a surprise. Many people predicted the decision would go the other way.”
And Vermont School Boards Association executive director John Nelson worried that the decision could interfere with discussions between parents and schools that he said mostly go well throughout the state.
“The problem is that it has the potential to undermine the collaborative nature of the special education law with regard to parents and schools working out issues together,” Nelson said. “What this says is that parents don’t need to work with schools and there is a danger in that.”