Just wanted to clue my readers in to the mini-debate that went on between the Special Education Law Blog and Board Buzz at NSBA. And, a hearty kudos to the authors for mixing it up a little. We could use more of that in the educational law blogosphere. Nicely done.

Post 1: In Tom F. Case Tie Goes to the Parents (Special Ed Law Blog)
Post 2: Bellyaching, Blogs and BoardBuzz (Board Buzz)
Post 3: Stinging Back over Tom F. (Special Ed Law Blog)\

Just for the record, I agree schools are not the weaker party as Special Ed Law Blog asserts and that IDEA should be construed in favor of the children/parents, but I agree with BoardBuzz that this case was wrongly decided by the 2nd Circuit and the 4-4 split just reinforced that wrong decision. IDEA was meant to provide special education services at public schools, not at private schools with unilateral placement. I also agree that this will not affect the large majority of special education cases, but I could certainly see a rise in private schools marketing their special education services to parents to encourage unilateral placement with tuition reimbursement. Given the cost of some of these private placements, even one student going this route will create a financial burden. It is not the end of the world, but it will be an additional financial burden on district budgets that are already stretched thin by special education. All that was needed to avoid the potential additional burden is to require parents to at least try the public school placement, which is not too much to ask as it is the public's dollars that will pay for education.

If the Supreme Court wanted to give parents some more rights in Special Education, they should have done it in Schaffer v. Weast and left the burden of persuasion on the school. The Tom F. case was inappropriately decided and I hope they take another case soon to clarify the issue (although they just denied cert. in Hyde Park v. Frank G., a case which could have provided more clarity).