NEWS ADVISORY
Students with AD/HD Find a Friend in U.S. Supreme Court
Court issues ruling in Forest Grove School District v.
T.A.
On June 22, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court in
Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
(No. 08-305) issued a 6-3 decision in favor of T.A., a
student with AD/HD and related disorders. T.A. had ongoing difficulties
in school but despite repeated requests was not evaluated for AD/HD by
the Forest Grove (Oregon) School District.
The Court, in an
opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, ruled that students with
disabilities are eligible to receive tuition reimbursement for placement
in a private school when the district fails to provide them a free and
appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
According to Clarke
Ross, CHADD’s CEO, “the Court’s decision in the case
affirms the responsibility of school districts to properly identify and
evaluate students suspected of having a disability such as AD/HD, and
provide them a free and appropriate public education. When school districts fail or choose not to meet this
requirement, parents have a right to find another school that can
provide their child with a free and appropriate public education, and
seek reimbursement for that placement.”
In reaching
its decision, the Court found that the 1997 amendments to IDEA do not
bar recovery for tuition reimbursement, as some lower courts have ruled,
and that absent clear Congressional language in the 1997 IDEA
amendments, the earlier court decisions (Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of
Education, 1985, and Florence County School District IV v.
Shannon Carter, 1993) establishing the right
to tuition reimbursement are still valid case law.
To help educate the
Court about the diagnosis and unintended consequences of untreated
AD/HD, CHADD joined an amicus brief written by the Disability Rights
Legal Center and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Civil rights organizations
also joined in support of T.A., including the Learning Rights Law
Center, Public Counsel, and the Association for Parent-Child
Advocacy.
A copy of the Court’s decision can be viewed here.
Posted June 23, 2009
Scroll down to read earlier posts about
this case.
Supreme Court to Hear Special Education Law Case: CHADD Joins Amicus
Brief
For immediate release
Press Contact: Sarah Roller, JD
Member, CHADD Public Policy Committee
(202) 342-8582
Landover, MD (April 27, 2009) – On April 28, 2009, the United
States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Forest
Grove School District v. T.A. (No. 08-305).
The issue the Court is being asked to decide is whether parents can
receive tuition reimbursement for special education services provided to
their child when their child is placed in a private school because the
public school failed to properly evaluate and provide the child with a
free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
CHADD joined an amicus brief in support of T.A. with the Disability
Rights Legal Center and the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, and
other civil rights organizations including Public Counsel, Learning
Rights Law Center, and the California Association for Parent-Child
Advocacy.
T.A., the student at the center of the case, was diagnosed with
AD/HD (attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder) and related mental health disorders during his
junior year of high school by a clinical psychologist engaged by his
parents after T.A. was denied special education services during his
freshman year. During his freshman year, the Forest Grove
(Oregon) School District only evaluated T.A. under the category of
specific learning disability and determined that T.A. was not eligible
for special education services under this category. The school district
subsequently refused to provide him services. As early as elementary
school, a number of T.A.’s teachers indicated that he had
difficulty completing his school work and paying attention in class.
According to Sarah Roller, JD, CHADD’s spokesperson, “Under
the IDEA, school districts have an affirmative duty to find and identify
students with disabilities, including students with AD/HD. In this case,
the school district failed to properly evaluate T.A., and subsequently
denied him a free and appropriate education, even though many teachers
noted that his difficulties impacted his success in school. AD/HD is a
real disorder affecting 5-8 percent of children with a 66 percent
comorbidity rate with other mental health disorders and can have a
significant impact later in life if not diagnosed and
treated.”
As discussed in the amicus brief, the failure of a
school district to properly evaluate a child with AD/HD early and
provide special education services in a timely manner can do serious
harm to a child, increase the need for services later, and impose heavy
burdens on their families. In addition, the adverse consequences
disproportionately affect children from families of lower socioeconomic
status. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals observed, to interpret the
IDEA as to require a child to receive special education services through
public school before becoming eligible tuition reimbursement would
produce absurd and harmful results, and this case demonstrates. When a
school district fails to recognize that a child is eligible for special
education services – as occurred in T.A.’s case – the
child cannot receive the special education services needed through the
public school. The problem is made worse if parents are categorically
barred from receiving reimbursement for special education services they
may secure through private schools, and the cost of such services deters
parents from seeking such services for their children
altogether.
In Forest Grove School District v.
T.A., the Supreme Court has not been asked to
address the appropriateness of the specific private school placement
T.A.’s parents chose for their child. CHADD remains firmly
committed to the rights of children with AD/HD and related disorders to
receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment free from all forms of abuse and neglect.
The amicus brief can be viewed here.
Posted April 26, 2009
| 
