My friends at Wrightslaw and Special Education Law Blog are the real experts here. But as a parent of a child who would fall under IDEA, and a taxpayer, I want to balance the district meeting its legal obligations with prudent use of funds.
Thanks to BoardBuzz, I read about a case in which parents and the school are litigating over IDEA and special expert reimbursement.
(Case: Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Pearl and Theodore Murphy)
Joseph Murphy, now 22, was in the eighth grade when his parents initiated their action against the school district. He was diagnosed with a severe speech-processing disorder.
After his parents successfully sought to have the district pay for his schooling at Kildonan, they petitioned in federal court to be reimbursed for $29,350 in fees to Marilyn Arons. Arons is a New Jersey-based consultant who represented the Murphys during the impartial hearings.
A federal district court judge ruled Arons should be paid $8,650. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award. Arlington then appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
"We didn't want to go to litigation, but they just would not give Joe the [special education] program he needed," said Pearl Murphy, who said she voted in favor of Arlington's budget last week. "This money (the legal fees) could have benefited not only Joe, but other children in the district."
Sources:
BoardBuzz April 21 2006
Poughkeepsie Journal News Story May 24 2006
Poughkeepsie Journal Blog Covering the Case
Special Education Law Blog on the Arlington v. Murphy Case:
Arlington v. Murphy: Show Us the Money!
If parents are expected to have access to an expert to match the “firepower” of the school, then the Court should rule that schools should be expected to pay for that expert when the parent prevails. Without the ability to recover expert's costs and expenses, this language from
Arlington v. Murphy: The School Board Association's Amicus Brief
The next contention is what I call the "cottage industry" argument. The NSBA press release summarized this argument as follows:
"The amicus brief [of NSBA] points out that a ruling upholding a strict interpretation of the IDEA will limit the ability of self-styled advocates and experts to seek out parents of special education students and encourage litigation with the sole idea of pursuing school district dollars. "
Essentially the NSBA continues the ruse that there are an army of unqualified advocates and experts, who have set themselves up as a cottage industry, with the sole purpose of ripping off school district money. This argument is another line of propaganda that is repeated frequently enough that to schools it sounds like truth, even if the sound is hollow. I have never seen or heard of experts, advocates or attorneys who sign parents up in the educational equivalent of ambulance chasing. Parents do not need convincing to file due process against schools; obnoxious, disrespectful and illegal actions of schools do an admirable job without any help from the outside.
[snip]
Awarding experts fees to parents will in small part make them financially whole, give parents the means to pursue rightful claims, and deter districts from abusing the natural disparity of power that is part of the institutional landscape.
From Wrightslaw
Pete Wright reports on oral arguments
Connect for Kids: Long Odds, an Interview with Pete Wright
Comments