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)).
Posts Tagged ‘disability & schools’
February 26 roundup
- High-school basketball player gets TRO over enforcement of technical foul after pushing referee. [Huntington News; Chad @ WaPo]
- Madison County court rejects Vioxx litigation tourism. [Point of Law]
- Faking disability for accommodation disqualifies bar applicant [Frisch]
- DOJ antitrust enforcement doesn’t seem to be consistent with U.S. trade policy position. [Cafe Hayek]
- Professor falsely accused of sexual harassment wins defamation lawsuit against former plaintiff, but too late to save his job. [Kirkendall]
- Watch what you say dept.: Disbarred attorney and ex-felon sues newspaper, letter-to-editor writer, Illinois Civil Justice League. (His brother won the judicial election anyway.) [Madison County Record; Belleville News Democrat; US v. Amiel Cueto]
“Extra-special education at public expense”
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).
Federal Way, WA mainstreaming lawsuit
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.).