Under IDEA districts that cannot properly educate special education students must fund private placement
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) special education students are guaranteed an education equivalent to that received by non-disabled students. Included in the guarantee is a requirement that school districts that cannot properly educate special education students must provide funding for those students to attend private day or residential schools. The ability of parents to obtain this funding, however, depends on where the parents live and their economic status. In New York, where schools were involved in a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week, districts funded private schooling for more than 3% of special education students in 2005. In New Jersey, that figure was 5.5%, and in Washington, D.C. it was 15%. Texas, by contrast, paid for private education for only 215 students, or .05% of the 467,169 special education students, ranking it near the bottom in the nation. That is a record that makes state education officials proud. Debbie Radcliffe, spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, states that it shows schools have successfully found ways to keep and teach special education students within the public school system. Some special education advocates argue, however, that it demonstrates stingy school districts that would rather litigate than get children the specialized help they need. According to Jimmy Kilpatrick, a Texas based special education consultant, "a kid has to go through three to four years of hell. Only once a kid is real aggressive, throwing chairs all the time, will they agree (to private placement)." Tamala Irish, whose Hear Me Foundation teaches parents to negotiate for special education services, knows of many who just give up and withdraw their children from public school. Ms. Irish thinks conservative courts are a big reason for the low private placement numbers in Texas. She argues judges here just do not side with parents.
Experts, however, note other factors that may play a roll. According to Tom Parrish, director of the Center for Special Education Finance, Texas likely has fewer private options or less of a tradition for using these schools to help special education students. He also points out that wealth could also be a factor. Using the District of Columbia as an example, he notes that families from richer ZIP codes disproportionately took advantage of taxpayer-funded private special education schooling. Lawyers arguing on the side of New York City schools in the Supreme Court case this month noted a similar trend. "Private tuition reimbursement is typically sought by parents who are familiar with the intricacies of IDEA and who have the resources to pay private school tuition out-of-pocket while they are seeking reimbursement," wrote lawyers siding with the schools. At last count, some 88,000 of the nearly 6 million special education students in the nation attended private schools on the public dime, according to an article co-written by Jay Greene, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Of these, nearly half are classified as emotionally disturbed. Mr. Greene estimates the cost of schooling these children at close to $922 million a year, or around 0.24 percent of all public school spending, although others argue the real number may be higher. It is this price tag that drives many school district complaints about private placements. In briefs filed in the New York City lawsuit, lawyers warned of "overwhelming" and "exorbitant" costs if cases like one in New York increase in the future.
Houston Chronicle By Sarah Viren
[Editor’s Note: Details on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Board of Education of the City of New York School District v. Tom F., are available below. This past week the Court denied review in a similar case from the Second Circuit, Board of Education of Hyde Park Central School District v. Frank G. As in Tom F., Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in consideration of the case.]
NSBA School Law pages on Bd. of Educ. of City of New York Sch. Dist. v. Tom F.