Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
“A federal appeals court has restored a lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin teacher who claims her district failed to accommodate her seasonal affective disorder by providing her a classroom with natural light.” [Amy Hetzner, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]
{ 2 comments }
Last week the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents of an Oregon student diagnosed with ADHD and other problems could send him to an expensive private school and bill the government for the cost, even if he had not previously been enrolled in a public school special education program. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders discusses the case and quotes me on a couple of points:
Walter Olson of overlawyered.com nailed the problem with the majority ruling when he opined in an e-mail, “The impulse to get a better shake for one’s kid is universal, but it’s disproportionately wealthy and clever parents, with their hired lawyers and experts, who succeed in using these rules to obtain a private school education at public expense. In this case, the question was whether parents should at least try the public schools’ proffer of special-ed services before declaring them inadequate, which doesn’t seem to me to be too much to ask.” …
Noting that Souter’s dissent was joined by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Olson noted, “I’m still trying to figure out why being progressive on this issue means siding with the private schools and affluent parents, while the conservative justices are the ones to defend the public school ideal of universal service.”
Saunders also quotes my distinguished Manhattan Institute colleague Jay Greene, who takes a different view. It’s worth noting, by the way, that parents of non-disabled students continue to have no right at all to obtain reimbursement for private alternatives should they decide the public schools are failing their kids. More: Tamar Lewin, New York Times; Zach Lowe, American Lawyer.
And: Scott Greenfield also takes a different view, and Jay Greene explains his reasoning further in comments and at his site.
{ 14 comments }
“A Massachusetts federal judge recently ruled that Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims against New England Law | Boston can move forward in a lawsuit against the school for expelling a student with learning disabilities who failed two courses. … According to court papers, the plaintiff, Seva Brodsky, was expelled after failing two courses in the spring of 2005, and later learned from medical testing that his ‘memory and organizational deficits’ likely stemmed from an accident in the early 1980s.” He was denied readmission even though, he alleged, he presented medical evidence of his disability and had completed satisfactory work in a law program in Israel. [Sheri Qualters, NLJ]
{ 6 comments }
{ 4 comments }
“Naomi Gadian, 21, from Manchester, claims that multiple choice testing discriminates against people with dyslexia” and is suing Britain’s General Medical Council and her college, the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry in Plymouth, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the U.K. equivalent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (”Dyslexic medical student takes legal action against multiple choice exams”, Plymouth Herald, Jul. 30).
{ 8 comments }
As we’ve been noting for a long time (Mar. 24, 2006, etc.), it’s increasingly common for parents of kids with disability diagnoses, after deciding that the public schools are not doing a good job of educating their kids, to enroll the kids in private school programs and stick public school taxpayers with the resulting high bill, citing federal disabled-ed law. (Parents of non-disabled offspring, needless to say, do not enjoy legal options of this sort if they believe the public schools are failing their kids.) Now the Supreme Court has accepted for review a case in which, according to the New York Times’s account, a former chief executive of Viacom did not even give a public school program a try before enrolling his son in a private school and demanding that New York City pick up much of the resulting bill. The New York Times’s account is distinctly unsympathetic toward the parent, and quotes Julie Wright Halbert, legislative counsel for the Council of the Great City Schools, as saying: “Many wealthy, well-educated people are gaming the system in New York City and around the country.” (Joseph Berger, “Fighting Over When Public Should Pay Private Tuition for Disabled”, Mar. 21; Amity Shlaes, “After Viacom, Freston Makes Case for Special Ed”, Bloomberg, Mar. 16; Mary Ellen Egan, “A Costly Education”, Forbes, Apr. 9 (sub)).
{ 7 comments }
The amazing industry that has sprung up to advance parents’ demands that schools accommodate their “learning-disabled” offspring is an old story around these parts (see here and here, for example). Even so, the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent investigative report can provoke a gasp:
* Even though federal, state and other sources already spend more than $4 billion a year to subsidize the provision of special education in the state of California, school districts in the state still shift more than a billion dollars out of their regular school budgets to pay for accommodation demands that include “private day schools, boarding schools, summer camps, aqua therapy, horseback therapy, travel costs, personal aides” and dolphin therapy.
* Administrators at Woodside High on the Peninsula offered a 15-year-old with learning disabilities and anxiety “daily help from a special education expert” as well as “a laptop computer, extra time for tests — and an advocate to smooth any ripples with teachers. If an anxiety attack came on, he could step out of class.” Not good enough for his parents, who decided to send him to a $30,000/year private school in Maine. Their lawyer demanded that the district pay not only the tuition but also for the whole family’s repeated cross-country travel costs to visit him there.
* Schools routinely buckle under to demands they regard as unreasonable, not only to avoid the expense of litigation but because the law tilts against them; a single procedural misstep in the hugely complicated process can leave them liable for damages and hefty legal fees. Since secret settlements are common, taxpayers may find it hard to grasp the extent of the monetary hemorrhaging.
* “It’s a blank check,” said [Paul] Goldfinger, vice president of School Services. “The system is stacked so that one segment of the population — disabled children — has first call on funding, and the others get whatever’s left.”
Infuriating reading (Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19). (& see Mar. 31 post, where comments continue).
{ 12 comments }
Six-year-old M.L., born autistic and severely retarded, was not toilet-trained, had no communication skills, and threw frequent temper tantrums that on one occasion resulted in another child being bitten. Federal law, 20 U.S.C. ? 1414, requires public schools, through an extensive and complicated procedure, to make accommodations to “educate” M.L. When the Federal Way School District offered to put M.L. in a special program with other autistic children, his parents protested, though they had not participated in meetings with school officials about the best possible solution. An eight-day hearing before an administrative law judge was held; the ALJ ruled against the parents’ objections. The parents appealed to federal district court. The federal district court ruled that the school district’s proposal complied with federal law. The parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the district court decision.
However, a few days ago, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion affirming the case, and asked for additional briefing on the procedures used to make the decision, raising the possibility that it will issue a new opinion requiring the school district to hold more hearings about the appropriate individualized education plan for M.L.
Press coverage of the case has focused almost entirely on the irrelevant issue that the parents were unhappy that some of the regular students were teasing M.L., who was apparently oblivious to the name-calling (which took place for all of five days). (Kathy George, “Judges reconsider teasing case”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dec. 22; M.L. v. Federal Way School Dist.).
{ 1 comment }
Point of Law Volokh