Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider a case involving an interpretation of federal law addressing the “stay put” provision of IDEA. “Stay put” allows a student with disabilities to remain in his or her current special education placement during administrative and legal proceedings, a process that sometimes takes months.
At issue is whether the “stay put” requirement ends when a state or federal trial court issues a final judgment in a dispute, or whether the provision continues until all court appeals are exhausted. The federal courts of appeals are divided over that issue.
In a recent court ruling involving a Pennsylvania school district, (Ridley School District v. D.R. No. 13-1547), questions arose concerning an elementary school student with disabilities. The child’s parents enrolled her in a private school after an IEP dispute. Because the hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents, the private school became the child’s stay-put placement.
On appeal, a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit eventually ruled in favor of the school district that the child’s public school IEP was appropriate. But in a separate action, a federal district court and the 3rd Circuit court said the school district was none-the-less obligated to pay for the child’s private school placement through the time of the first appellate decision in the case.
The school district appealed the reimbursement ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The National School Boards Association and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, joined the effort, filing a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the “stay put” provision should only remain in force through trial court proceedings.
In brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General at the request of the Supreme Court, the federal government advised the Justices that the lower court rulings were correct and were required by regulations. They wrote that the court ruling was “consistent with the IDEA’s goal of providing stability for children with disabilities until there is a final resolution of a legal dispute over their educational placement. If the stay-put provision terminated after a district court decision and while an appeal was pending, parents would be faced with the untenable choice of either (1) removing their child from a private school that the court of appeals ultimately might find appropriate, or (2) risking being responsible for the cost of the private school for the duration of the appeal.”
The justices denied review in a one-sentence order without any recorded dissent.
.