Favorite

Court ruling helps special-needs kids 

On June 22, the U.S. Supreme Court implicitly gave school districts nationwide monetary incentive to do what they were supposed to be doing all along — provide free appropriate public education to all children — rather than to simply buy their way out of the problem. In Forest Grove School District v. T.A., the Court broadened its interpretation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), effectively making it much easier for parents of special-needs children to receive reimbursement for private school education of their children.

Prior to Forest Grove, many courts held that reimbursement under the IDEA required that the special-needs student have been previously enrolled in a public school program. In Forest Grove, the Court ruled that school districts could be required to reimburse parents who unilaterally move their special-needs child from public school to private school, even if that child had not previously been in a public school special-education program, provided that the private placement was in the best interest of the child.

Reactions to this decision have run the gamut from appalled to elated. Regardless of our opinions on the decision, though, Forest Grove is now law and, from a purely financial standpoint, the potential ramifications for schools who do not adapt to the new requirements are enormous. In 2007-2008, under the previous, more-restrictive reading of the IDEA, the New York City school district reimbursed nearly 4,400 students at a cost of nearly $89 million, an average of over $20,000 per year. Currently, Arkansas spends about $8,400 per student per year. Even adjusting for cost differences between New York and Arkansas, with the relaxed requirements for reimbursement, it is easy to imagine what would happen to the Little Rock School District if a large percentage of the 2,715 special education students were suddenly moved to private schools.

With dollar signs of this magnitude hanging over our collective heads, districts are faced with the requirements of identifying special-needs students and providing them with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) under the IDEA, and with identifying those students early enough that an effective IEP can be in place before a parent has reason to consider removing her child from public schools. Satisfaction of these requirements is going to require nothing less than a rounding of the educational globe.

The first change that must be accomplished is recognition that special-needs students are not a separate pool of costs, but, rather, general education students in need of additional services. The old model, where special-needs costs are calculated separately, provides too much incentive for incorrect identification; a successful new model must meet our children's special education needs by using a school's comprehensive resources and by viewing all students as part of the general education program first.

A second needed alteration is a commitment by the schools to work with parents from day one rather than simply during the formation of a child's IEP. By making families more involved in the early assessment and intervention decisions for our children, schools will locate special-needs students earlier and more efficiently and will have assistance in providing the individualized attention. Most importantly, this school-parent relationship will create a coordinated and integrated set of services for the special-needs children and will lessen the likelihood that a parent would find the child's IEP insufficient and attempt to place that student in private education.

Opponents of the Forest Grove decision might read it to say that parents can sit back, do nothing, and still be entitled to reimbursement, thus parents really have little incentive to work with the school. Yet such an argument overlooks a parent's already-existing incentives, such as keeping her child in the same school with his friends, rather than moving him to a private institution, and avoiding a situation where parents with multiple children have a special-needs child in a private institution — for which they receive reimbursement — and a child in the public school district that is now teetering on bankruptcy due to those reimbursement costs. Even so, there is little doubt that school districts could do more to incentivize the cooperation between parents and schools. Thankfully, such actions are myriad in possibility.

In the end, all the hand-wringing over Forest Grove seems to stem from the perceived choice being given to schools: Adapt or face massive financial repercussions. In reality, though, the choice is far simpler and far less sinister: Provide the services you should already have been providing or be willing to pay someone else to do it for you. That's not a doomsday scenario so much as a wake-up call.

 

Matthew Campbell is a Little Rock lawyer.

 

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

People who saved…

Readers also liked…

  • Schlafly's influence

    Phyllis Schlafly, mother, attorney and longtime antifeminist, died recently. What Schlafly promoted was not novel or new. Men had been saying that men and women were not equal for years. However, anti-feminism, anti-women language had much more power coming from a woman who professed to be looking out for the good of all women and families.
    • Sep 15, 2016
  • Seven

    The controversy over the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol lawn just won't go away.
    • Feb 9, 2017
  • Why a change of leadership at the LRSD now?

    Johnny Key's abrupt, unilateral decision to not renew Baker Kurrus' contract as superintendent strikes us as shortsighted, misguided and detrimental to the education of our children and the health of our community.
    • Apr 21, 2016

Most Shared

Latest in Guest Writer

  • Vote no on school tax

    I have never voted against a school tax in my life, but I will be voting against the debt service millage extension for the Little Rock School District.
    • May 4, 2017
  • Intracity tourism

    The issues that tug at my heartstrings are neighborhood stigma and neighborhood segregation, which are so prevalent in Little Rock. In my opinion, the solution to those problems is "intracity tourism."
    • Apr 27, 2017
  • Not justice

    The strongest, most enduring calls for the death penalty come from those who feel deeply the moral righteousness of "eye-for-an-eye" justice, or retribution. From the depths of pain and the heights of moral offense comes the cry, "The suffering you cause is the suffering you shall receive!" From the true moral insight that punishment should fit the crime, cool logic concludes, "Killers should be killed." Yet I say: retribution yes; death penalty no.
    • Apr 20, 2017
  • More »

Visit Arkansas

Paddling the Fourche Creek Urban Water Trail

Paddling the Fourche Creek Urban Water Trail

Underutilized waterway is a hidden gem in urban Little Rock

Event Calendar

« »

May

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31  

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Trump unfit

    • Sorry, sorry - I mis-spoke or mis-wrote - the ACTUAL headline on the article was…

    • on May 23, 2017
  • Re: Trump unfit

    • Sez who, Al? All Trump said is that he has the right as President, to…

    • on May 23, 2017
  • Re: Goodbye, Mr. Trump

    • Well, the irony is delicious, but the fact of the matter has been that the…

    • on May 23, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation