The decision of the case

The decision of the case

Justice Stevens delivered the decision ". Consistent with our decisions in Burlington and Carter, we conclude that IDEA authorizes reimbursement For the cost of private special-education services when a school district fails to provide a FAPE and the private-school placement is appropriate, Regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public school”. The decision of the case was in

Favor of the child 6-3. The court decided that the parents that put the child in private school should be reimbursed whether or not if the child had received special assistance in the past. The case precedent that the courts used was form School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass. decided April 29,1985.The major issue that kept coming up was weather or not the 1997 amendment to the IDEA prohibits the reimbursement for private schooling for disabled children in certain cases. Because the public schooling system didn’t approve the parent before putting there child in private school makes this case not so open and close. The courts decision on this is also based upon what was best for the child. The child was obveisily not getting the care that he needed at the public school so his parent put him in a private school where he was getting the care that he needed.  

 

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=359

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/us_supreme_court_rules_against_1.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-305.ZS.html

Your own argument

Your own argument

I completely agree with the ruling. Given all the facts you can only come to the conclusion that the child's parents deserved the reimbursement. First of all the child was misdiagnosed in the first place by the school psychologist. This led the parent to take matter into there own hands. Though the child hasn’t been receiving IEP form the school district that is not the problem. What should be done for the child is what’s best. The precedent case was brought up on the same basis the father put the child in private school as the proceedings to decided whether of not the child should be placed in a private school or public school was going on. This brought up the problem that should the father be reimbursed for putting his child in a private school before the school district decided on what was best for the child. I think that in that case the father was also right in not awaiting and putting his child in a school that could better suit his child’s needs and should have been rein burst. 

reasoning of the court

reasoning of the court

 The decision of the courts is in favor of the child, the parent will be rein burst for the private school tuition that they put their child in. The fact that the child wasn’t receiving FAPE prior to being enrolled in a private school was a major factor. Another fact behind the courts reasoning is that the psychologist that first interviewed the child was later discovered that it’s wasn’t a full interview. In fact the child had ADHA, which didn’t severely affect his schoolwork but effected it enough for him to struggle .Along with the ADHD there were other non-specified disabilities that the child exhibited. Fact three is that "IEP is an education plan tailored to a child’s unique needs that is designed by the school district in consultation with the child’s parents after the child is identified as eligible for special-education services". Though the amendment made to the 1997 IDEA says parents will be rein burst for private schooling doesn’t apply to this case. I think that the court decided what was in the child’s best interest. The public school couldn’t or wouldn’t provide the right education for the student so the parent put the child in a private school where they could be assure that the child will get the education that he/she deserves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-305.ZO.html

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305

Dissent

Dissent

 

 The dissenting justices to FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER case are Justices Souter, Scalia, and Thomas. They respectfully disagree with the fact that the IDEA was amended by congress. The amendment that they specifically name is the amendment of 97 which addresses payment for education of children enrolled in private schools without consent of or referral by the public agency. Theses are some of the questions that the justice has” If the mother did not mean that the homework had to be done, why did she mention it at all, and if Congress did not mean to restrict reimbursement authority by reference to previous receipt of services, why did it even raise the subject?”[1] Theses are all legitimate questions, which I think deserve some answers. The justices also believe that because the child had not had past help for the school district that the provisions to the 1997 amendments would not protect them. The clause says “If the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private elementary school or secondary school without the consent of or referral by the public agency.”[2]

---

[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305#dissent1

[2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305

 

What do you think of the Supreme Court?

What do you think of the Supreme Court?


What do I think about the Supreme Court?
In a summarized version I think that somebody has to do it. Meaning that whether or not I agree or disagree with any of their decisions they are the only way that I know of to decide where the line is drawn. The Supreme Court has its flaws they are all only human but in some case the right decision was made and in some cases the wrong one was made. To go in deeper I think that the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to make that tough call in a case where both sides are very extreme. I think that diversity could hurt the Supreme Court, men, and woman, black, and white and all other races should be a part of it at some point. Different perspectives is always a good thing the person that thinks that something is bad might have a good argument but the person that thinks that it is good or should be allowed might have a better argument. Since a lot of the people that are up there have their own agendas then most likely think alike. With more diversity it might take way longer to get to a decision but its worth it if all points are discussed levied and weighed. Given today’s world where people study on how to get through loops holes and all the new issues that arise based on the society the Supreme Court should be ever changing in my mind. I say that because I hear about all the stuff that goes on in the background and some of the stuff I see but I’m not really sure on what really goes down in chambers but I do know that I do not what to have their job I think it would be to stressful.

Issue of the case

Issues of the case

An Issue of this case is whether or not the child was mentally disabled or not. The child had been taken to a school psychologist to evaluate his disability. The psychologist found “that respondent did not need further testing for any learning disabilities or other health impairments”[i]. Which lead to a parent conference where “The psychologist and two other school officials discussed the evaluation results with respondent's mother in June 2001, and all agreed that respondent did not qualify for special-education services”[ii]. This rejection by the school psychologist lead to the major issue which is weather the Parents should be rein burst. This is supported by “The plain text of IDEA provides for reimbursement of private-school tuition when a school district fails to provide a free appropriate public education.” This was supported by the administration.
[i] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305
[ii] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305

Illicit

Illicit

My view on the stealing of intellectual property is not a positive one. I believe that is wrong but I’m not entirely too concerned with it. If it happens once I can let it slide but if that same person seats the property on multiple occasions it not cool and it shouldn’t fly. Watching the movie today “Illicit” I am more aware of the connections that come with counterfeits but I’m still not convinced that it will destroy the world. The movie had some farfetched ideas such as how purchasing a hand bag form a street vendor who counterfeited the items would lead to bombs and explosives are too big of a step to leap too. A lot of these people that are the heads of the business aren’t stupid if they get rid of the competition in different countries then they are ultimately loosing business. The movie to me is saying that the money they make from the illegal merchandise is going to trickle down to terrorist organizations to fund a bomb that will wipe out the people that provided them with the money. Form a business point of view that’s not a smart business investment on the surface. Why would anybody what to take out there profit? As far as me buying form street vendors for fake stuff it would make no difference to me either way I feel like I’m getting ripped off (which I probably am) at the stores and I know I’m getting not ripped off at a vendor but by the movies logic I’m killing myself so it’s a lose lose situation for me as a consumer. I’m not a willing supporter of counterfeits, I’m not going to go outside and sell stuff and give the money to the underground networks but I might buy something form a street vendor.