« New book ties arts to success for students in poverty | Main | 'Anecdotal but troubling' »
November 16, 2005
Supremes rule for schoolsMonday, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in favor of school districts in Schaffer v. Weast. In a dispute that arose in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, the Court ruled that hearing officers should not presume that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) developed for special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) are inadequate unless the school district proves otherwise.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the 6-2 majority, but Justice John Paul Stevens may have captured the main point best in his short concurring opinion. While he shared some of the concerns articulated in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, he concluded that "we should presume that public school officials are properly performing their difficult responsibilities under this important statute."
Past NSBA Legal Clips write-ups, with links back to links back to links on the case, the briefs, the arguments, etc., starting here. Here's NSBA's statement on the ruling, in which NSBA's new General Counsel Francisco Negrón points out that the decision is "consistent with [IDEA's] emphasis on a collaborative process between parents and schools who are equal partners in developing IEPs for children with disabilities."
The stakes were high for school leaders trying to lower legal costs, which come at the expense of educational services. As the Baltimore Sun's Liz Bowie observes here, the school district "was joined by a variety of national education groups that usually don't take the same side, including a national teachers union and the National School Boards Association."
Press coverage
Linda Greenhouse's account in the New York Times provides background on the case's route to the Supreme Court. Charles Lane and Lori Aratani do a good job of presenting both sides of the arguments in this piece in the Washington Post. Another example of balanced coverage is this interview with NPR Education Editor Steve Drummond, who mentions his discussion with NSBA Senior Staff Attorney Naomi Gittins.
Once again, though, in many places schools are experiencing the usual problem with headline shorthand. AP and many of the outlets that ran its filing led with this one: "Court rules against special ed. parents." That framing, of course, ignores a point BoardBuzz made the last time we discussed this case: what's at stake here are hard choices about what services we can provide to students, including hard choices among services to children with disabilities.
Even worse, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin headline is about the "onus on isle parents versus DOE," which is eye-grabbing but reinforces the all too typical us-versus-them, children-versus-bureaucrats worldview that plagues special education and that Congress keeps trying to move IDEA beyond. Thankfully, the Star-Bulletin followed up with this sensible editorial.
Shifting the battleground?
Justice Breyer argued in his dissent that Congress had left the burden of proof question to the states. The majority declined to rule on that question, since this was unnecessary to decide the case, but the state question will be key going forward. The point was discussed in oral arguments and was briefed by some state attorneys general. Will this issue now be fought out in the lower courts? Will the fight now move to state governments, and will they be pressured to undo the Court's ruling at a state level? Or will Congress step in, and, if so, how?
The District of Columbia Attorney General announces in the Post article above that D.C.'s regulation placing the burden on schools is no longer operative. More details in this Post article, in which D.C. School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz notes that D.C. has the highest number of court hearings in the country. The article also quotes Virginia School Boards Association Executive Director Frank Barham on the financial stakes and Fairfax County, Virginia school board member Stuart Gibson on the educational consequences if the Court had gone the other way, giving parents more disincentive to work with their schools instead of jumping to court.
Going forward
The big picture in all this is summed up well in the first Post article by University of Dayton education professor Charlie Russo: "For a long time, special-education kids had no rights. Now critics would say we've gone too far. I see this as coming back to the middle. Special-education students have rights, but they're going to have to trust that school systems are doing what should be done."
The reporting highlights the fears among special education parents and advocates that "coming back to the middle" will weaken our commitment to their children. Recent changes to IDEA and NCLB, which we also applaud, contribute to these fears. While educators and school attorneys have loads of horror stories about the big business of special ed plaintiff lawyers and about more affluent and sophisticated parents gaming the system for costly private placements, parents have their own tales about unresponsive schools.
Our obligation to students with disabilities is one of the things that makes public education great and sets public schools apart. NSBA has warned districts about using the new IDEA and NCLB flexibility responsibly and about the need to reassure parents. The Weast decision gives this message renewed urgency.
A timely reminder
Looming over all this, of course, is a point no reporter should have overlooked. It's one we've made even in jest, although it's no laughing matter. It's one that school board members, educators, special ed advocates, and parents need to keep making ad nauseum until lawmakers respond with more than reassurance.
Thirty years after Congress committed to fund 40 percent of IDEA costs, it's working its way up to half that amount. In its last iteration of IDEA, Congress authorized funding that would get to the 40 percent over the coming years. But it's already failed once to make Adequate Yearly Progress toward its goal. And it doesn't look likely to make AYP this year, either.
When Congress shirks its duty year after year after year, schools have to make harder choices, and parents are more likely to be upset about whether their child is getting the very best. This case exemplifies the disputes and fears that are the inevitable result.
Posted November 16, 2005 1:25 PM
Trackback Pings
BoardBuzz Feed
