Supreme Court to take up special education case

Board of Education of the City School District of New York v. Tom F. will be one of the most closely watched decisions of the 2007-08 term. It will determine whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires a district to pay for a student’s private education even though the child had not attended a public school or if the student must “try” what might be an inappropriate placement before moving to a private setting.

The case centers on a father’s efforts to force the New York City district to pay tuition at a private school for his son, who has learning disabilities. In 1995, Tom Freston placed Gilbert in a private school in kindergarten, which was paid for by the school district.

Four years later, though, school officials offered a public school placement that they felt met IDEA’s requirement for a “free, appropriate public education.” Tom Freston rejected that placement.

After hearing officers ruled in favor of the father, a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the school district in 2005. The decision states that, if a child has not previously received special education services from a public agency, the district is not required to pay for expenses related to a parent’s unilateral placement in a private school.

However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, saying that IDEA does not explicitly exclude students who had not received special education services from a public agency, and that parents should not have to jeopardize their child’s health and education to claim reimbursement.

NSBA will file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the district.

The brief will urge the justices to consider the intent of IDEA, particularly the 1997 amendments that limited tuition reimbursements to children who had previously received services from a public school and Congress’ belief that the law should move toward collaboration between parents and school officials.

“This has serious implications because, in essence, a parent would not be required to collaborate with the school district before making a unilateral decision on the placement of their child,” said NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negrón Jr.

Years later, parents could send tuition bills totaling thousands of dollars to the school district, and those bills would not be subject to any review, Negrón added.

If the court sides with Tom F., parents would still have to prove that the school district’s proposed placement was inappropriate and that the private placement was necessary for their child to receive appropriate services.

But if the court decides in favor of the school district, parents would either have to unilaterally place their child in a private setting and forfeit any right to claim reimbursement or place them in a public setting that might be inappropriate.

Then, if the district does not change the placement, the parents would transfer the child to a private school and ask the district to pay the tuition.