« Fall loll | Main | Grumpy old people »
October 10, 2007
Supreme Court math doesn't add upAttention! We interrupt our previously scheduled hiatus to bring you breaking news.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued a 4-4 ruling in a special education case that has the potential for serious financial consequences on school board budgets.
Speaking of numbers, BoardBuzz has a math problem for its loyal readers: What is four minus four minus one? In math terms: (4- 4) -1 = X. BoardBuzz's quick readers have undoubtedly concluded X = -1. And, in the world of Supreme Court math, a -1 justice can have dire consequences.
In the case of NYC vs. Tom F., minus one justice (Anthony Kennedy recused himself) means the appellate court's decision stands to award the parent of a special education student tuition fees for placing his child in a private school. And, that kind of math will have a serious implications for school district budgets in the 2nd federal circuit, where parents now can avoid collaborating with their school districts as required by the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) AND still collect public dollars for private schooling.
Say what?
Yep, you heard it. The Supreme Court's ruling lets stand a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that found the NYC School Board had to reimburse a parent who placed his special education child in private schools without ever enrolling his child in public schools. When the public school district found that its schools could provide the free appropriate public education required by the IDEA, the parent challenged the school district in court because he wanted to retain his child in the private school. Of course, the private education comes with a hefty tag.
Hello? When Congress revamped the IDEA in 1997, they specifically said that before parents were entitled to reimbursement for placing their children in private schools, they needed to first enroll the children in public schools. In other words, because a private school education has the potential for breaking the proverbial school district bank, Congress felt the public schools should have first dibs at providing the free appropriate public education required by law. If the public school could not provide the appropriate educational services, or if it was proven the education was not appropriate after the district had tried, then and only then was the district responsible for paying for private tuition.
But, the Court apparently could not decide on what Congress meant when it gave school districts "first dibs." Were that BoardBuzz had a seat on the Court rather than in the gallery! After all, BoardBuzz was a baby bee blog once too, and understands the meaning of "first dibs" along with every other first grader.
Congress knew some parents would choose not to send their children to public school. And, that is just fine. But, Congress also knew that public schools should not be footing the bill for those parents that never intended to send their children to the public school, but wanted the taxpayers to pay for their choice of private schooling. So, that's why Congress, said that public schools should serve children first. Justice Scalia had it right when he commented at oral argument that public schools “should not have to pay the freight for people who would not be coming to public school anyway.”
Dedicated readers of BoardBuzz know we are not one to clamor for legislation. We think, afterall, that the law is clear. But, now that the Court (without Justice Kennedy) cannot tell us what Congress meant, maybe it's time for Congress to spell it out for the rest of us ... and for the Court.
Want more? Read NSBA's amicus brief. Check out what our legal beagle friends over at the SCOTUSblog are saying. And tune into NBC Nightly News tonight to see NSBA Executive Director Anne Bryant's take on the decision.
Posted October 10, 2007 4:43 PM | School Boards | School Law | Special Education
Trackback Pings
BoardBuzz Feed
