Special Education

Court Weighs Parents’ Rights Under IDEA

By Andrew Trotter — March 06, 2007 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Federal law generally bars parents who are not lawyers from representing their children in court, but the U.S. Supreme Court considered last week whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act creates an exception to that rule.

Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, who are not lawyers, want to represent their son in a lawsuit against the Parma, Ohio, school district, near Cleveland, over the child’s educational placement.

They cannot afford a lawyer, and they argue that the special education law allows them to represent their son, Jacob, who has autism. The Winkelmans also contend that they may argue for their own rights under the federal law. (“Court to Hear IDEA Case on Parents’ Rights,” Feb. 21, 2007.)

Although the parents lost on both issues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, other federal appeals courts have recognized the right of nonlawyer parents to represent themselves, at least on procedural issues.

The stakes for parents and school districts are great, given that the IDEA covers 6 million children.

“Parents are real parties in interest in IDEA suits, regardless of the claim being asserted,” argued Jean-Claude André, the lawyer representing the Winkelmans during the Feb. 27 arguments in Winkelman v. Parma City School District (Case No. 05-983). He told the justices that the special education law permits eight distinct rights that parents can assert for themselves, during the administrative process that can eventually be brought to court.

“All eight of those provisions refer unambiguously to the parent’s complaints,” not to the child’s, Mr. André said.

‘Uphill’ Argument

While the Winkelmans were seeking reimbursement from the school district of their costs in sending Jacob to a specialized private school, “our position is that the full bundle of rights” can be claimed by parents, Mr. André said.

Parents “are still intended [to be] beneficiaries of appropriate education,” just as their children are also beneficiaries, he said.

That sparked a retort from Justice Antonin Scalia. “The child is entitled to an appropriate public education, and the parents are entitled to have it provided free,” he said. “That’s really the only interest they have on the table, it seems to me, separate and apart from their status as representatives or guardians of the child.”

The Bush administration joined the argument on the side of the Winkelmans.

David B. Salmon, an assistant U.S. solicitor general, argued that “the term ‘special education’ is defined to be specially designed instruction at no cost to parents. … So it is defined as the parents’ interest.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg both noted the extensive administrative process laid out in the IDEA that guarantees that parents are involved directly in developing their children’s individualized education programs.

Parents can be “aggrieved parties for the purpose of the administrative process,” said Justice Ginsburg. “The question is, when that’s done, [whether] they also constitute aggrieved parties” who may therefore represent themselves in court.

But when Pierre H. Bergeron, a Cincinnati lawyer representing the 13,000-student Parma school district had his turn, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was puzzled by the district’s insistence that the parents had no rights, given language in the statute on procedural rights “for both children and the parents” and stating that any “person aggrieved” is entitled to a hearing.

“Throughout the whole act, they talk about the parents and the student,” Justice Breyer said. “You’re trying to convince me. And it sounds like an uphill battle.”

Mr. Bergeron said “the ‘party aggrieved’ [a term used in the law] does mean a party entitled to a remedy.”

“All relief must be based on the substantive rights of the child,” he added.

Who Would Benefit?

The high court’s eventual decision in the case may determine whether many low-income parents of children with disabilities have meaningful access to the federal courts, advocates for families say. They cite a scarcity of free legal aid and the reluctance of private lawyers to take IDEA cases on behalf of families unless they are very likely to prevail. The law provides for awards of legal fees to the prevailing party in the case.

Justice Scalia revealed his suspicion that the parents most likely to benefit from the right to represent themselves were not the poorest ones.

To Mr. André, he asked whether disadvantaged parents were likely to become well versed in the intricacies of the IDEA, as well as in federal court procedures.

“I mean, the people [who] you’re [asserting are] benefiting here are the people least likely to have familiarized themselves with the statute and the procedures, ” Justice Scalia said.

Mr. André suggested that low-income parents can argue credible cases on their own behalf if the proceedings are conducted by “a capable district judge.”

Justice Ginsburg expressed the worry that low-income families might have no recourse in federal court if they may not represent themselves in such cases.

She said that the parents who are the “least needy” can sue, put their children in private schools, and wait for reimbursement of the costs if they win. “It’s the people who can’t [afford those steps] who have no alternative—they have to take what the school district gives them,” she said. A decision is expected by the end of the court’s term in June.

A version of this article appeared in the March 07, 2007 edition of Education Week as Court Weighs Parents’ Rights Under IDEA

Events

Recruitment & Retention Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: Chronic Teacher Shortage: Where Do We Go From Here?  
Join Peter DeWitt, Michael Fullan, and guests for expert insights into finding solutions for the teacher shortage.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
The Science of Reading: Tools to Build Reading Proficiency
The Science of Reading has taken education by storm. Learn how Dr. Miranda Blount transformed literacy instruction in her state.
Content provided by hand2mind
Student Achievement K-12 Essentials Forum Tutoring Done Right: How to Get the Highest Impact for Learning Recovery
Join us as we highlight and discuss the evidence base for tutoring, best practices, and different ways to provide it at scale.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Special Education Q&A This Teacher Helps Students With Disabilities Find Agency Through Communication
An award-winning special education teacher shares insights on pandemic recovery and building agency for students with disabilities.
5 min read
Blue silhouettes of two faces look  toward each other with a speech bubble and a thought bubble between them to represent communication.
DigitalVision Vectors
Special Education Supreme Court Seems in Favor of Deaf Student's Right to Sue School District Under the ADA
Miguel Luna Perez was there as the justices weighed issues in his case over his district allegedly failing to provide trained interpreters.
7 min read
Miguel Perez stands outside the Supreme Court after arguments in the case of Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools on Jan. 18, 2023 in Washington, D.C.
Miguel Perez, right, along with lawyer Roman Martinez, stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday after arguments in his case against his former school district in Sturgis, Mich.
Mark Walsh/Education Week
Special Education A Deaf Student Says His School District Failed Him. The Supreme Court Will Decide
Miguel Luna Perez received inadequate assistance for 12 years, his suit says. The high court will decide if he can pursue money damages.
10 min read
Miguel Perez
Miguel Luna Perez in a 2016 yearbook photo as a senior at Sturgis High School in Michigan. Luna Perez, who is deaf, went on to the Michigan School for the Deaf in a settlement with his district but is seeking to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for the district's alleged failures to provide him adequate assistance to communicate.
Photo courtesy of Luna Perez family
Special Education 'Better Defined by Their Strengths': 5 Ways to Support Students With Learning Differences
What are effective ways schools can support students with learning differences? Educators on social media weighed in.
3 min read
A diverse group of students wearing book bags and climbing ladders and books to assemble a large puzzle
iStock/Getty Images Plus