LEGAL ISSUES
because the interpreter was essen- tially a conduit through whom infor- mation passed without endorsing what was being taught, the student was entitled to this service in his faith-based school.
As school business officials and other education leaders well know, disputes in special education can be contentious and costly.
The 1997 modifications of the IDEA were consistent with Zobrest; however, the IDEA’s regulations (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.129 et seq.) minimized Zobrest’s impact on the on-site delivery of special-education services in faith-based schools by limiting the amount of money school boards must spend to provide these services. Under these provisions, school boards need only spend a proportionate amount of federal funds they receive based on the num- ber of students in nonpublic schools in relation to the overall number of children in their districts.
Due Process Hearings
In an important preliminary mat- ter regarding dispute resolution, the Supreme Court clarified which party bears the burden of proof in disagreements over the contents of student placements and IEPs in due process hearings. In Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast (2005), a lawsuit from Maryland, the justices affirmed that the burden of proof rests on the parties challenging IEPs. The justices emphasized that although the issue was not before it, states could, as some already had, place this burden of proof on school boards. On remand in Schaffer (2009), the Fourth Circuit affirmed
that because the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit, it met the child’s educa- tional needs.
Pro Se Parents
Another issue that arose with some regularity, but which led to a judi- cial split, was whether nonattorney parents could act pro se, literally “to appear on one’s own behalf,” in disagreements over whether school officials provided FAPES for their children with disabilities. In Winkelman v. Parma City
School District (2007), a controversy from Ohio, the justices held that because nonattorney parents have rights separate and apart from those of their children, they can proceed pro se in judicial actions challenging the appropriateness of the place- ments of their children.
Conclusion
As school business officials and other education leaders well know, disputes in special education can be contentious and costly. The more informed they are about the signifi- cant issues the Supreme Court has resolved under the IDEA, the better able they will be to meet the needs of all students in their districts, includ- ing those with disabilities.
References
Arlington Central School District v. Mur- phy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006).
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F. ex rel. Gilbert F., 522 U.S. 1 (2007).
Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. West Virginia Department of Health and Hu- man Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999).
Deal ex rel. Deal v. Hamilton County De- partment of Education, 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004).
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017), on remand, 290 F. Supp.3d 1175 (D. Colo. 2018).
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.
38 MAY 2022 | SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS
Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009), on remand, 638 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2011).
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).
House of Representatives, United States Congress, H.R. 2740, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. 2009; H.R. 1208, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. 2011); S. 613, 113th Cong., 1st Sess. 2011.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. and as cited.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984).
NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics). 2021. Students with disabilities, May.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ indicator/cgg.
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Bor- ough of Clementon School District, 995 F.2d 1204, (3d Cir. 1993).
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hen- drick Hudson Central School District, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), on remand, 554 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2009).
School Committee of the Town of Burl- ington v. Department of Education, Com- monwealth of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984).
Timothy W. v. Rochester, N.H., School District, 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989a), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 983 (1989b).
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681.
United States Code, as cited.
Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516 (2007).
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dis- trict, 509 U.S. 1 (1993).
Charles Russo, legal issues liaison for ASBO’s Education Committee, is Joseph Panzer Chair of Education in the School of Education and Health Sciences (SEHS), director of SEHS’s PhD program in educational leadership, and research professor of law at the University of Day- ton, Ohio. Email:
crusso1@udayton.edu
asbointl.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
