Supreme Court considers special education case

Last week, the Supreme Court attempted to find an answer to a question that continually vexes schools and families: What does it mean to meet the needs of a student, especially one with disabilities?

Nearly 7 million students have special needs. In the not-so-distant past, many of their needs went unmet at school. In 1970, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). Over the next four decades, lawmakers had different ideas about IDEA, but the core principle has remained: Public schools must help students with qualifying disabilities by creating individualized education plans (IEPs). The federal government partially funds those IEPs to help special needs students. At first, Washington promised 40 percent, although 15 percent is closer to reality.

But IDEA also stipulates that if public education cannot meet the needs of a disabled student, parents can seek reimbursement for private school tuition. That’s what a family in Colorado did when they said public schools failed their autistic son. Drew attended public school through fourth grade, and over the years his behavior worsened. Teachers eventually removed him from the classroom because he banged his head on the floor, ran away from school, yelled out, and otherwise disrupted his classmates.

The school district created an IEP for Drew, but his parents felt the school had given up on their son. The IEP for his fifth grade year looked exactly the same as the prior year’s IEP, and it wasn’t working.

Desperate to do something, Drew’s parents enrolled him in private school. Drew improved markedly under its methods. Because they couldn’t persuade the public school to implement the same plan, they sued to be reimbursed for what they paid in private school tuition.

Lawyers and the Supreme Court justices debated at length just how far school districts were required to go to help special needs students.

“What the act requires is for the school to provide instruction and related services to the child that are reasonably calculated to provide substantially equal educational opportunities,” Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher argued on Drew’s behalf.

Justice Samuel Alito expressed frustration at the difficulty of defining “equal opportunity,” saying the law had a “blizzard of words.”

“I don't understand what an equal opportunity means when an equal outcome is not practical,” Alito said.

But different standards across the country create confusion. Some areas use as a standard “meaningful educational benefit.” Some apply a standard of “just above trivial.” The justices found those differing standards troublesome. But Justice Stephen Breyer expressed doubt that the law is the answer for these students. He said the law was “at a distance from the people, the children and the parents, who need help.”

Perhaps that’s the truest thing said in this difficult case with no easy answers. Individuals with disabilities ought to be helped to reach their potential. But schools have budget constraints, as do families. Mix in hopes and dreams for maximizing someone’s future, and the law does seem a limited tool.

Listen to “Legal Docket” on the Jan. 15 episode of The World and Everything in It.