Special Education Today

The United states Supreme Court has declined review of two special education cases. The order denying "certiorari," or review, of the lower court decision may be found on pages 8 and 9 of this link.

In LM, et al v. Capistrano Unified Sch Dist 538 F.3d 1261, 50 IDELR 181 (9th Cir. 8/19/2008), the Ninth Circuit held that the school district violated state law by limiting the time that a psychologist could observe the student's placement to 20 minute increments, the parents were not thereby deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the IEP review process. Therefore FAPE was provided by the district. The Supremes let the Ninth Circuit decision stand.

The other case was Stancourt ex rel Stancourt v. Worthington City Sch Dist 51 IDELR 19 (Ohio Ct App 9/9/2008). In this decision, the Ohio appellate court ruled that the stay put clause did not prohibit a school district from modifying a student's behavior plan while a due process hearing was pending because a behavior plan is not a part of an "educational placement,"where evidence supported that the behavior plan would not have been effective without modification. The Supremes also decided not to hear this case.

Image via Wikipedia

Unfortunately for us special ed law junkies, there will be no supreme court action this term. I'm going to go out on a limb though and suggest that there will be a special education decision by the high court next term. What do you think? Am I right?

The United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has confirmed what most of us had expected: the U. S Supreme Court decision in Rowley, et al v. Board of Education 553 ID

Image via Wikipedia

ELR 656, is still good law.

At the trial level, the U. S. District court had held that the 1997 amendments to the IDEA had changed the definition of FAPE, the IDEA's primary guarantee that a child with a disability receive a free and appropriate public education. Given new language in the goals of the 1997 amendments, the district court held that the Rowley decision, requiring only that and Individualized Educational Plan be reasonably calculated to confer some academic benefit, set the bar too low. JL & ML ex rel KL v. Mercer Island School District 46 IDELR 273 (W. D. Wash 12/8/6)

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected the reasoning of the district court. The appelate panel found that Congress did not intend by the 1997 amendments to overrule the Rowley standard. The Ninth Circuit cited three reasons for disagreeing with the trial court's analysis. First, Congress did not amend the statutory definition of FAPE. Second, Congress did not require attainment of transition goals in order to rceeive FAPE. Third, Congress did not express dissatisfaction with the educational benefit standard or express an intention of overturning the standard. JL, et al v. Mercer Island School District 109 LRP 48649 (Ninth Cir. 8/6/9). You can read the entire court opinion here.

It is interesting that most school district lawyers say that the Ninth Circuit is the most anti-school district circuit. Despite that reputation, this decision is very pro district. I do believe that most special education lawyers will agree with the result, however. So what do you think? Did the Ninth Circuit get it right?

Those of you who follow this blog know that I was concerned about the school district's argument that hearing officers lacked authority to grant reimbursement. I had never heard this argument made before. NOTE: I have a bias here, I am a due process hearing officer for a growing number of states and I train hearing officers across the country. A few commentators have dismissed this issue as a "nonstarter," but at least three justices asked questions concerning the argument at the oral argument. Maybe others gave this argument little attention, but believe me, hearing officers were taking it seriously.

As my preliminary analysis noted the supremes specifically noted at page 17 of the slip opinion that both hearing officers and courts have the authority to grant reimbursement for un

Image by onecle via Flickr

unilateral placements in proper circumstances. The Court explained its reasoning in footnote 11 on page 13 of the majority opinion.

Specifically, the Court ruled that the district's argument concerning hearing authority ignores the Burlington decision. The high court stated that the Burlington decision interpreted IDEA "... to authorize hearing officers as well as courts to award reimbursement notwithstanding ...(Section 615's) silence with regard to haring officers." n. 11, Slip Op at p. 13. The opinion goes on to state that by amending IDEA without altering the text of the section, Congress implicitly adopted the Supreme Court's construction of the statute regarding hearing officer authority to award reimbursement.

Forest Grove Sch Dist v TA 557 U.S. ____, 109 LRP 36046 (6/22/2009) is an important decision for hearing officers to cite in their decisions. It is clear that this decision reiterates the ruling of Burlington that hearing officers ,like courts, have broad equitable discretion to award an appropriate remedy where there has been a violation of IDEA.

here are some additional resources: First, a couple editorials applauding the ruling: St. Louis Dispatch and Boston Globe. The SCOTUS blog resource page concerning this case includes analysis, briefs by the parties, amicus briefs and a transcript of the oral argument at the high court. A law review article written before the decision discusses some policy concerns can be found here. This link has three perspectives on the ruling.