High Court on Education for Students with Disabilities (Audio)

Advocates for students with disabilities argue that schools should be required to provide an education equivalent to what they provide to students without disabilities, but school districts argued that they should only be required to make sure that there is some educational benefit in their programs for students with disabilities. With US Today to talk about the cases. Robert Garda, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans who's an

expert on American education law. Rob, welcome to the program. We're very glad to have you here. Why don't you um frame the facts and issue in the case for us, no problem. Andrew F was an autistic student that attended public school in Colorado from p pre K through fourth grade.

Beginning in about first or second grade, has autistic behaviors be again to interfere with his academic learning abilities, and over the next two years, the academic goals that were set for Andrew remained roughly the same in what's known as his individualized education plan. The parents were unhappy that their son had not made significant progress under the individualized education plans, so withdrew him from public school and sent

him to private school. They then sought tuition reimbursement from the school district, alleging that the district had violated the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act because it has failed to provide him with a free, appropriate public education. As you noted in your introduction, Um, the parents and the student lost at every single level. That being, a hearing officer ruled against them, saying that the school had provided

some educational benefit. A district court affirmed that, and then the Tenth Circuit also affirmed it, holding that it was a very close case that the school had indeed provided some educational benefit, but hinting that if the standard were different, it might reach a different conclusion. Rob experianded by the Supreme Court and it's deciding that precise issue. Rob explained that phrase you used a couple of times, some educational benefit.

How have lower courts across the country interpreted that? What? What have they said that actually entails? Well? The real key provision in the Individuals of Disabilities and Education Act is that states must provide students with disabilities a free

appropriate public education. In the Supreme Court, in a famous decision called the Rally Decision, determined that the free appropriate public education required states to provide some educational benefit, but in that same decision it also said that states must

provide meaningful access to students. What's resulted in the thirty years since that decision is a split among circuit courts, with some finding, including the Tenth Circuit the subject of this lawsuit, that anything that's non trivial or anything any dominimus benefit satisfies that free appropriate public education standard. Other circuits, though, have required that there be substantial or meaningful educational benefit

or significant educational progress. So the Supreme Court in this case is going to decide which of those standards, or an entirely different one, fulfills the obligations under the Act. Greg you were in the courtroom today during the oral argument. Tell us about what happened. Well, what what happened was at the beginning, Michael, you use the word equivalent, and that is indeed something that Andrews lawyers were arguing that

they are entitled to UH an equal educational benefit. The discussion moved pretty quickly away from that because the Justice didn't seem to think that was the right way to announce to analyze it here, and essentially they were they were very skeptical of what rob was was talking about with the the you know, somewhat more than diminimus standard. That standard they seem to think UH didn't have the

kind of bite that Congress intended. The struggle for them was how to articulate what it was that Congress did intend. And so there was an awful lot of discussion about semantics and whether there's a difference between meaningful and significant, and UH concern that there might, you know, if they weren't clear enough, that they might be opening the school districts to an awful lot of litigation. Well that that obviously is going to be one of the arguments that

UM weighs against the pliniffs in this case. Rob is you know what what happens when the UM If the Court sets a higher standard, then how is it that it gets enforced? So tell us what what would happen if, say this, the Court said there's a substantial progress requirement for students, how would families enforce that against school. Well,

there's two mechanisms of enforcement under the Act. The first is what you note parents bringing due process complaints or lawsuits against school saying that you need to now comply with the new standard, which is a substantial educational benefit or significant educational progress. The other enforcement mechanism is the

Department of Education. This is a funding statute. In other words, the federal government has given money to the states in exchange for the states to promise to abide by the Act. If under the new standard, the Department of Education finds the states are not in compliance, that could threaten them

with their funding. Rob One thing that that was discussing court that that I had a little trouble wrapping my head around, was that that the lawyer for the school district was making the argument that that it's just the I d e. A is just a procedural set of procedural rights, and that they even this, uh, you know, something more than diminimus standard that some lower courts have used, that that wasn't actually a substantive standard. Do you agree with that analysis, and if not, is it just a

question of picking the substantive standard that's right? I disagree with that analysis. There is a good argument that I d e. A just requires a certain level of process for parents. In other words, they must be included in the individualized education plan. There must be a full assessment

of the child. There are numerous procedures identified in the Act, but the Supreme Court in Rally and other courts since have sort of said there definitely is a substantive requirement, though it does require that there be educational benefit given to the child. So while the Act focuses on procedure and it's necessary to comply with those procedures, there is also a substantive requirement. What that requirement is, though, is

really the nub of the discussion here. Well, very quickly, in about thirty seconds, does does it require in your view, does it require the student make progress or that it just be that the program is a decent program. I

think it requires the student to make progress. As the government argued, the substantial educational benefit, significant educational progress sort of best comports with the changes that the Act has been through since its passage in nineteen At that time, the key was just getting students sort of into general education.

Since that time, though, we've really been able to improve the education of students with disabilities such that we should not have low standards or the minimus requirements for them. We're able to educate them much more effectively now, and the Act seems like it should recognize that advocates for students for disabilities and the people who administer American school districts disagree about the level of educational benefits that federal

law requires schools provide to students with disabilities. And today the Supreme Court heard argument on a case that has split the courts throughout the country over the last couple of decades um about just what is the level of educational benefit that American schools have to provide to those students. Talking to us about the case is an expert on education law, Pete Wright, who I excuse me, Robert Garda, who is a professor at Loyal University, New Orleans College

of Law. Rob you were talking earlier about the way that the the way that the federal law allows students and families to enforce the requirements of the Individuals with disabilities and Education Act against school districts to make sure that students with disabilities get what they are legally entitled to. And one of the things you talked about was the possibility of litigation over you know what program the school

districts are giving to the students. If the court adopts a higher standard in this case than what the school district is arguing for higher substance standard, is there going to be an explosion of litigation against school districts by parents of students with disabilities. That's uncertain right now. Not that many parents actually sue already, and so the first step that must be taken as mediation. If you disagree with the program that's being given to your student, you

initiate mediation. A vast majority of the dispute resolve at that stage, and very few go to a due process hearing or a court proceeding. I think changing the standard would certainly require schools to step up and do more for students with disabilities. I'm not sure would increase litigation though, because of parents willing to litigate, would have litigated under the sum educational benefit standard or under whatever new standard the Supreme Court may issue. It's possible, but uncertain. One

justice did express concern about that today. Stephen Brier said, quote, I foresee taking money that ought to go to children and spending it on lawsuits and lawyers. Rob I wanted to ask you about one other aspect of this UH.

Justice Kennedy asked Jeff Fisher, the lawyer for the for the family, UH, can school districts consider cost in figuring out what is the appropriate plan for a given student and just Jeff Fisher's answer was basically no, because Congress has made the judgment that it's cheaper to provide services for a students than have to pay money to to to support them the rest of their lives. Is he

right about that? Yes, he is right about that. The Court has been very consistent saying that UM school districts cannot consider cost in terms of providing a free appropriate public education. In other words, they must do it now. How they choose to do it is entirely up to the school district. And of course school districts will take into account cost in deciding what programming to provide students.

But it is correct that cost is not an excuse to not provide a free, appropriate public education to a student. In terms of the statement you said earlier from the judges, those don't surprise me at all. I do think that a new standard would increase costs for school districts. I'm not sure it would increase litigation budgets, but I think it would increase special education budgets because a higher standard should equate to more services for students. Rob in about

thirty seconds. The the the people who are you know, the people representing the school district are arguing that there's a problem under the Constitution with the court having a higher burdened on schools here because schools are accepting federal money and it's it's got they've gotta have a clear rule for what they required to do, and it has not been clear before that they have to meet a higher standard. This is spending what's called the spending clause

argument under the Constitution. Is there anything to that argument? Yes, In fact, I think that's one of their stronger arguments. It's pretty much the theme of their entire brief because of the suspending legislation. It's in the nature of a contract, and the defendants argument is if you change the standard now,

you're essentially changing the rules of the game. When states agreed to accept this money from the federal government and undertake these significant obligations, the standard was the rally standard to some educational benefits standard allegedly, and by increasing that standard now the contract has been changed essentially, and that cannot be done unless there is clear notice in the statute. And the defendants argue there's no such clear notice. That

is sort of their underlying theme of their brief. And I didn't hear oral argument today, but it would surprise me if they change that theme at oral argument. Well, our thanks to Rob Garda of New Loyola University, New Orleans College of Law.