U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Reimbursement Claims for Special Education StudentsIn June, the High Court clarified an important issue arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The case is Forest Grove School District v. T. A., No. 08-305. Prior to the Forest Grove decision, federal courts came to differing conclusions on the private tuition reimbursement issue.
The majority of six justices backed a broad interpretation of the IDEA’s statutory remedy provision, which authorizes courts “to grant such relief as they determine is appropriate.” 20 USC 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii). Unfettered now by a need for prior public school enrollment, the Forest Grove ruling opens the gate to reimbursement for private special education services to parents who can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a public school fails to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE); and (2) the private school placement is appropriate and can offer the child a FAPE. The Court rejected the School District’s argument that the ruling would impose a heavy financial burden on public schools and encourage parents to enroll their children in private school without first trying to cooperate with public school authorities. It noted the Court had previously imposed restrictions in its 1985 Burlington decision. In Burlington, the Court held that the IDEA’s grant of authority includes "the power to order school authorities to reimburse parents for their expenditures on private special-education services if the court ultimately determines that such placement, rather than a proposed IEP, is proper under the Act.” Also, the Court noted that parents unilaterally change their child’s placement at their own financial risk.
|
In the August 2009 issue of Legally Speaking . . .Our annual back to school issue includes timely articles on the following topics:
|
ServicesThe Office handles a diverse mixture of legal matters on behalf of the District. Such legal services include the drafting and reviewing of contracts, resolutions, and policies; defending civil actions and administrative proceedings at all levels of state and federal courts and the Department of Administrative Hearings; providing legal advice on a regular basis on all matters concerning the operation of the District; and providing training and compliance programs. The Office of Chief Counsel is not legal counsel to parents, students, or the general public and does not advise individual citizens. For more examples of services we provide click here. |
FAQsWas a Policy amended recently to allow students to use cell phones at school? |
TrainingsView training presentations presented by our Legal Department. Topics include: Procurement Policies, Field Trip Policies and other topics. |
Legally Speaking - April 2009 EditionStudent Safety Spurs Changes to FERPA Athletes’ Deaths Can Mean Liability for Their Coaches Ask the Bruzer Regulatory Q & A DCF - Mandatory DCF Reports of Child Abuse Avoid Liability Potholesin Off-Campus Travel Exception to Workers’Comp’s ‘Exclusive Remedy Rule’ Case Law Update Federal and State Law Board Policies Allow, Limit Use of Technology Case Law Update Special Education |
Mission
The mission of the Department of Legal Services, Office of Chief Counsel, is to assist the School Board and District staff in serving the educational needs of students in a legally-compliant manner. The Chief Counsel, assisted by the Senior Associates and Associates, functions as general counsel to the Board and to District administrative staff.