An Answer by the Supreme Court to the Question of "Reimbursement" under the IDEA

The IDEA requires states which receive federal funding to make a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) available to all children with disabilities residing in the state.  In 2003, relying on a 1977 amendment to IDEA, the parents of a student who had never received special-education services in public school sought government reimbursement for their child’s private school tuition. See Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., cert. granted, 129 S. Ct. 987 (2009).

The student, referred to as "T.A.," attended public schools from kindergarten through his junior year of high school without receiving special needs services.   T.A.’s parents contacted school officials during his freshman year to request evaluation of T.A.’s difficulties with paying attention in class and completing assignments.  School officials arranged for T.A. to be evaluated by a school psychologist, who concluded that T.A. did not qualify for special-education services.

The parents, following the advice of a private specialist, enrolled T.A. at a $5,200 a month private school shortly after T.A. was denied special-education services by the School District. Weeks later, the parents hired an attorney who requested an administrative due process hearing regarding T.A.’s eligibility for special-education services. The hearing officer concluded that T.A. did have special educational needs and that the School District failed to meet its obligations under IDEA in not identifying such needs.  The hearing officer ordered the School District to reimburse T.A.’s parents for the cost of the private-school tuition. 

An intense dispute between the parents and the School District ensued, and by August of 2009 the matter was brought before the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the 1977 amendment to the IDEA prohibited private-school tuition reimbursement for students who never received special-education services in public school.  The School District argued that the 1977 amendment, which provides that tuition, under certain circumstances, may be available for students with disabilities who previously received special-education services in public school, clearly prohibited private tuition reimbursement for students who never received special-education services in public school.

The Supreme Court disagreed.  The Court reasoned that the 1977 Amendments were intended by Congress to be broadly construed so as to preserve the IDEA’s purpose of providing a FAPE to all children with disabilities.  The Court thus concluded that the "IDEA authorizes reimbursement for the cost of private special-education services when a School District fails to provide a FAPE and the private-school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public school." 

Only time will tell whether the Court has appropriately crafted a balance between the need for special needs students to be fairly and adequately evaluated and public school’s long term financial ability to provide special need services at a satisfactory level. 

Note:  This article is intended for discussion purposes only and should not be used to assess whether you or your agency is affected by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Forest Grove Sch. Dist.  We strongly encourage you too seek advice from an experienced attorney for any specific questions you may have concerning compliance with the IDEA.  You may contact, FDW’s Emilia Walker at 770-478-9950 or ewalker@fdwlaw.com 

Disclaimer: This newsletter is designed to provide general information only. The information presented here is not intended to constitute formal legal advice nor is the provision of the same meant to result in the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.