Betsy DeVos’ committee hearing was terrifying and not because of her suggestion that schools in Wyoming might need guns to fend off grizzlies. For students with disabilities the real threat has nothing to do with hypothetical bears; rather, it has to do with DeVos and the educational system.
DeVos’ unsatisfactory responses to questions about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act suggests educational opportunities for students with disabilities are not at the top of her priority list. Her comments signify an incomplete knowledge of IDEA and fail to address a current and potentially landmark Supreme Court case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, that considers IDEA with relation to private education.
The case involves parents who enrolled their child with autism in a private school that specializes in instruction based on applied behavioral analysis methodologies, shown to be effective for autism. The student showed progress through this method of instruction, but the public school system refused to fund and implement applied behavioral analysis services for the student. In response, the parents sued for tuition funds, an amount totaling $70,000 annually.
The Supreme Court case fundamentally contests the level of services that the law requires the government to fund. The interpretative debate about IDEA’s elusive clause “free and appropriate public education” calls into question whether private education can substitute for public services.
Although IDEA allows funding for private placement under particular circumstances, the school district should ordinarily be liable for providing adequate services within the student’s public school.
The suit’s ties to private education have a certain degree of irony given DeVos’ unconditional and unyielding support for school choice programs. The case further questions how DeVos’ ideals of privatized options apply to students under IDEA.
Private schools, after all, are notorious for requiring parents and guardians to waive their children’s rights under IDEA.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the parents’ suit, proponents of school choice programs could use the outcome to promote services provided outside of the public system. It could prove an opportunistic moment for highlighting how a private option was superior, if more costly, for this particular student.
However, the case also presents the troubling possibility that public schools might not be required to implement services within their system if private options exist. Such a prospect is additionally problematic because the law has minimal regulatory power in private schools.
Praise for private programs fails to acknowledge schools for specialized instruction also imply separate education and that in terms of IDEA, “private” is often synonymous with “unregulated” or “noncompliant.”
The phrase “free and appropriate public education” does not mention private education, nor does it authorize the relegation of services to private schools.
School choice may sound like a positive and liberating option for education, but, for some students, the programs only serve to decrease educational possibilities. When we consider school choice programs, we also need to consider who is actually making the choices.
