The decision in Forest Grove School District v. T. A. was supported by six Justices with three dissenting. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, asserted that it did not make sense to interpret the IDEA in a way that would “provide a remedy, as all agree it does, when a school district offers a child inadequate special education services but to leave parents without relief in the more egregious situation in which the school district unreasonably denies a child access to such services altogether.” He added, “A reading of the [IDEA] that left parents without an adequate remedy when a school district unreasonably failed to identify a child with disabilities would not comport with Congress’ acknowledgment of the paramount importance of properly identifying each child eligible for services.”
While this ruling certainly means that school districts need to continue carefully evaluating the individual needs of each student, it clarifies that parents now do not have to give the school district’s proposed placement a chance to succeed to receive tuition reimbursement. However, the Court pointed out that parents still take a financial risk in doing so given that the proposed public school placement may still ultimately be found to provide FAPE. In addition, the Court emphasized that the private placement chosen by the parents must still be appropriate in order to qualify for reimbursement.
The decision resolves a legal issue that had been decided differently by various federal appellate courts across the country. School districts that believe they have offered FAPE to a student but do not get the opportunity to implement an IEP due to the parents' refusal to enroll the student may still defend their proposed IEP in a due process proceeding.
If you have any questions about this ruling or related issues, please contact our lawyers in the Education Group for further assistance at (816) 474-8100.
