What do you think about Justice Scalia’s passing and the decision to nominate or block a Supreme Court nominee? Did you know that there dozens, if not hundreds, of Supreme Court cases that changed Special Education?
There’s a lot of talk right now about the Supreme Court. Should he appoint, should he wait? And maybe, with all the “noise” out there….you’re ignoring it. Maybe you think it doesn’t apply to you. But, the Supreme Court has handed down some very important decisions regarding Special Education. I don’t know what the actual breakdown is–how many cases that are heard by the SCOTUS are special ed cases, as a percentage. But, it’s enough that we do need to be concerned about who is deciding.
IDEA sets the framework for what schools should be doing. And state regs may further define it for us or give more details. But much of the nitty-gritty is still determined by case law. And this is only SCOTUS case law that I am presenting, just because we have a SCOTUS vacancy right now. There is still much fascinating information in the federal district courts. Many parties choose to stop after a federal decision. Or, the SCOTUS can refuse to hear the case, thus cementing the Federal court decision.
I originally wrote this post right around the time of Scalia’s passing. Since then, we have had the Endrew Case. Endrew was important not only because it helped define FAPE, but because it was an early and unanimous decision. Here are some talking points about Endrew, FAPE and then 7 other Supreme Court Cases that shaped special education.
Endrew and FAPE Supreme Court case
Here is the recent OSEP guidelines on Endrew.
And here is what Pete Wright has to say about Endrew.
Supreme Court cases that shaped Special Education
1954-Brown v. Board of Education: Provided an equal opportunity for all.
“Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
Although this case was originally about race, in subsequent cases, it has been used and pointed to as a reason to include kids with disabilities.
1982- Rowley v. Board of Education
FAPE! SCOTUS decision was that the IDEA requires proposed special education and related services to be “reasonably calculated to enable (student) to receive educational benefits.” The phrase “reasonably calculated” has generally been understood to mean that the IDEA does not guarantee any particular result—rather, the educational services proposed by a school district must only be reasonably likely to provide sufficient benefit to the student. The key remaining question, of course, is how much benefit is sufficient under the IDEA’s FAPE mandate. The Rowley case gave a little bit more definition of “appropriate” and related services, held the school district accountable for procedural violations that caused harm to the student, and it determined that grades are not to be the sole criteria in determining success.
1984-Tatro v. Irving Independent School District
SCOTUS determined that a child could stay in school despite his disabilities that necessitated that he have a catheter cleaning each day at school. Since a trained layperson can perform that procedure, it was determined to be a related service. The case stands out as the court’s first attempt to define the distinction between “school health services” and “medical services.” This was later similarly addressed in 1999 in Garrett F v. Cedar Rapids Community School District. The Court held that continuous nursing service is a “related service” that the school district is required to provide under the IDEA. The Court also noted that an IDEA dispute “is about whether meaningful access to the public schools will be assured”, thereby repeating the “meaningful access” standard originally articulated in Rowley.
1988-Honig v. Doe
SCOTUS ruled that a California school board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) when it indefinitely suspended a student for violent and disruptive behavior that was related to his disability. In addition, the court affirmed that the state must provide services directly to students with disabilities when local school boards fail to do so, and it further clarified “stay put.”
2005-Schaffer v. Weast
Ah, one of my favorites! (not!)
Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in a due process hearing that challenges an IEP is placed upon the party seeking relief. So, if a parent files for Due Process, then Burden of Proof is on the parent.
2006-Murphy v. Arlington School District
Supreme Court determined that parents who win in a Due Process hearing are NOT entitled to recover expert witness fees having to do with the claims established in Due Process.
Now, there you go. Eight really important cases. And that’s only 8. I could go on forever. I haven’t even touched on private placement and reimbursement…and there have been several cases determining various outcomes regarding private placement at public expense. There have been other cases on stay put, pendency, related services and discipline. So for those of you who say “I thought this was an education blog, not political!” I say, “It is both. Because the two are never separated, unfortunately.” And never have been.
Pin it so you have it!