Sped Talk

Introduction

Special Education Caselaw is an important part of understanding your rights as a parent of a student with a disability and your student’s rights. Being familiar with the cases below can help you understand 5 of the major components of your rights as a family, including a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), least restrictive environment (LRE), IEP compliance, state oversight, private placement reimbursement, and placements.

Case # 1 & 2- Providing FAPE, Placement Decisions & Transition Services (note this summary is longer and more detailed to fully understand all of the actions that took place during this decade-long case)

#1 Miksis v. Evanston Township High School District 202 (2004-2009)

John, a student with Down Syndrome, who was beginning his freshman year at Evanston Township High School. At this time there were disagreements between the family and district about services that were (or weren’t) in the IEP, placement in inclusive vs. specialized programs, and transition services after high school.

The first conflict started in 2004, when the district proposed a new IEP for John’s 9th-grade year with different services. The parents did not believe that his needs would be supported through this IEP. Major disagreements include the removal of some co-teaching supports, reduced special education support time, and the removal of social and communication programs. The two parties started with mediation but could not come to an agreement, so a due process was filed. Ultimately, the hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district, agreeing that the IEP met IDEA requirements.

2005- Federal Court Lawsuit- Appeal that argued that the district had denied John a FAPE and failed to maintain his previous educational placement during the dispute. The “stay-put” IDEA provision requires that the student remain in the current educational placement while disputes are being handled. The court granted a preliminary injunction to keep supports in place.

2007- Seventh Court Appeal-School district appealed the injunction to keep John’s educational placement. The court reversed the injunction and sent it back to district court.

2008-2009-Mootness Issue and Settlement Discussions- John has progressed into his junior year in high school. The school district argued that the case had become moot because it involved earlier high-school services. Judge ruled that the case was partly moot because the original high school IEP was outdated but ruled that claims for compensatory education and attorney fees could continue. Settlement discussions began.

2009- Settlement agreement for transition services- a settlement agreement was reached. This included that John would attend Orchard Academy transition program for the 2009-2010 school year at the district’s expense. It also included that 2010-2011 and beyond, if he was accepted he would attend the PACE program at National Louis University at the school district’s expense. If PACE did not accept him, the parties would meet again. This settlement resolved the original lawsuit.

#2 Miksis v. Evanston Township High School District 202

Breakdown of the settlement agreement started shortly after the agreement was started because of:

Attendance issues: John’s mother had arranged for additional supports so he could attend a community college course with Orchard Academy so the school district was paying for the extra transportation and cost of a teaching assistant. The school district did not know this was happening. John was only attending one day per week.

District Response: John was not properly participating in the program. The district disenrolled John from Orchard Academy and removed him from the district’s enrollment. The district also stated that they would NOT pay for the PACE program, claiming it was not an approved placement.

Lawsuit # 2- 2012

John’s parents filed a new lawsuit that argued that the district had breached the settlement agreement, violated IDEA, and improperly terminated John’s education. The parents were seeking reimbursement for a private program they enrolled John in after the district removed him.

Federal Court Decision- 2017

The court concluded that the school district breached the settlement agreement by disenrolling John, the district’s actions showed they would not follow the agreement in the future, and that even though both sides were supposed to cooperate, the parents had reasonable grounds to believe the district would not honor the agreement.

Legal Significance of these cases:

Settlement agreements are legally binding– if you and your district enter a settlement agreement, it is binding for both parties. Be sure you hold up your end of the bargain.

Transition Services are part of IDEA: Students with disabilities are entitled to services until the age of 22.

Schools cannot unilaterally terminate services: District has to follow IEP and settlement procedures before changing a placement.

One other takeaway from this decade-long case is that open and honest communication from both parties could have prevented this entire conflict. Communicate in a positive, productive way with your district, and if you feel it is not being reciprocated, move up the chain of administration.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_12-cv-08497

Case # 3- Corey H. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (1992-2013)

This case was a class-action lawsuit filed against Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and the Illinois State Board of Education on behalf of 53,000 special education students. It alleged that CPS violated IDEA by isolating students with disabilities in segregated classrooms. The case resulted in a settlement requiring CPS to provide education in the “least restrictive environment,” significantly restructuring special education to mainstream students into general education settings. This case was monitored by the court for many years after the ruling in 1998 to ensure compliance.

Key Findings in this case:

Students with disabilities were frequently placed in overly restricted environments. Placements were based on disability label instead of the students’ needs. CPS did not have adequate training on inclusion practices. The Illinois State Board of Education did not monitor CPS compliance with IDEA. .

Key IDEA principles:

LRE– Students with disabilities must be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent that is appropriate.

Individualized Placement Decisions: Placement decisions must be based on individual student needs.

State Accountability: This is important because too often the state relies on the district to ensure IDEA compliance is enforced, but the state has equal responsibility for this monitoring.

Legal Takeaways:

Inclusion is the default under IDEA- there must be justification for any removal from general education.

States must enforce special education law.

Placement by disability is illegal.

https://clearinghouse.net/case/11069/

Case #4

Beth B. v Van Clay (2002)

Beth B., a student with Autism, and her parents filed a dispute against Mark VAN CLAY, individually and in his official capacity as superintendent, and Lake Bluff School District No. 65 over the adequacy of the student’s special education services. The parents believed the district failed to provide an appropriate education for Beth’s needs and requested a private placement at a specialized school to meet her needs. The district believed that its program satisfied IDEA requirements. The parents were looking to be reimbursed for their daughter’s private placement costs.

Court Ruling:

The court ruled that the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the private placement costs. The court agreed that the district’s program did not address the student’s educational needs and that the private placement was appropriate and necessary for the student to make progress.

Key IDEA Principle:

Parents can remove their student from public school and place them in a private placement when they believe the district is not providing special education services for their student to make progress, not meeting FAPE, and/or not in the LRE. The parents have the right to file a claim for private placement reimbursement through the court system. It is important to note that families should exhaust all possibilities with the district and have open communication with them before a step like this is taken.

Legal Takeaways:

Parents may seek reimbursement for private placements.

Educational benefit must be meaningful meaning that schools must provide programs that allow students to make meaningful educational progress.

Courts will examine IEPS for quality.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/211/1020/2572295/

Case #5

Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211 v. Ross (2007)

This case involved Ross, who was a high school student with learning disabilities. Ross had been receiving special education services through an IEP to address his learning disabilities. As Ross progressed, disagreements between his parents and the school district arose over the appropriate level of services and placement. The parents believed that district had failed to address Ross’s educational needsd and failed to invlude them meaningfully in the deciison-making process. They filed a due process complaint under IDEA.

Under IDEA, districts must follow the procedural safeguards which include: allowing parents to participate in IEP meetings, providing notice of proposed changes, properly evaluating the student and documenting educational decisions.

Court Analysis and Ruling

The court shared that not all procedural errors automatically violate IDEA. They do violate IDEA if they do not allow for FAPE, interfere with parental participation in a significant way, or cause a lack of educational benefits. The court ruled in favor of the district because there were minor procedural irregularities, they did not significantly interfere with parental participation, and Ross still received a FAPE.

Key IDEA Principles

Procedural safeguards are essential.

Parent participation is a legal right.

Not every procedural error violates IDEA.

Legal Takeaways

Only SIGNIFICANT procedural violations that affect the student’s education or parental rights justify change.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_05-cv-06111

Hopefully, these cases have helped you and your family further understand your rights as a parent, but also your students’ rights under IDEA.