The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider two appeals involving how schools treat students in special education.
The first case involves a 5 year-old Colorado girl with multiple intellectual and developmental disabilities. The girl’s school used a special desk with a wooden restraining bar to keep her from pushing back in her seat. The girl’s mother challenged the use of the restraining desk.
The case before the court asked whether that desk violated a student’s rights, and amounted to an unconstitutional “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver held that the exclusive use of such desks in special education classrooms did not violate the 14th Amendment equal-protection rights of students. Court papers say a teacher and paraprofessionals used the U-shaped desk to discipline the student and keep her from disrupting the classroom. The mother argued that the “locking” bar kept her daughter restrained in the desk, sometimes for as long as an hour. Lawyers for the family argued in their appeal that the Supreme Court’s guidance was needed concerning the correct legal test for what constitutes a Fourth Amendment “seizure” in a school setting.
The district argued that the use of the wraparound desk “was justified and reasonably related to the circumstances,” adding that it was “used for educational purposes to teach the student how to properly sit at a desk, stay on task, and focus her attention, and also for safety purposes.”
The second case declined by the Supreme Court addresses the “social promotion” of students with disabilities who are unable to pass state achievement tests.
The case involves a Texas high school student with learning disabilities. The boy’s parents challenged the school district’s decision to waive the writing portion of a state skills test rather than provide the teen with extra help to address his writing deficit.
The teen had failed the writing portion of that state’s assessment – the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills – three times. His parents sought a specific individualized education program to deal with his writing problem, but the district decided to waive the testing requirement and declare that the student passed the state achievement test so he could graduate high school.
A hearing officer and a federal district court determined that the school district failed to provide the boy with a proper IEP under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans ruled 2-1 that because the student was in a position to graduate from high school, he had received academic benefits that satisfied the district’s duty to provide a free, appropriate public education under the IDEA.
The dissenting judge wrote that the majority’s decision effectively gave the school district license for the “social promotion” of students whose special education services might be too costly or whose behavior problems were too difficult.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court (Hovem v. Klein Independent School District No. 12-875), the family argued that the 5th Circuit court’s decision could lead to “dire public policy implications” as suggested by the dissent.
The U.S. Supreme Court justices declined to hear both appeals without any comment or recorded dissent.
