Court: R.I. must provide special education until age 22

Oct. 31--The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Rhode Island Board of Education must provide free public education to students with disabilities until they reach age 22.

The appellate court's decision vacates the U.S. District Court's finding and leaves it to the District Court, working with the Department of Education and the plaintiffs, to develop a solution.

Sonja L. Deyoe, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, said about 1,600 students are affected by this decision.

The Rhode Island Department of Education said the 1st Circuit Court's ruling calls for "Free and Appropriate Public Education" to be provided to people with disabilities until age 22. This conflicts with current state law, which states that such services are provided to age 21.

"We received the ruling just Monday evening," said RIDE spokeswoman Meg Geoghegan. "We are in the process of reviewing the decision and cannot yet comment."

The plaintiffs, a young adult with special needs and a group of similar individuals, argued that Rhode Island had failed to provide a "free, appropriate public education" to students with disabilities, as required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The plaintiff says Rhode Island provides public education to young adults without disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22 but does not provide special-education services to people with special needs of the same age.

The U.S. District Court sided with the defendants by concluding that adult-education programs provided to non-disabled students over 21 do not constitute "public education" within federal law. Therefore Rhode Island does not discriminate against students with disabilities by failing to offer them special-education services after age 21.

The state Board of Education says that the ordinary meaning of "public education" is limited to education that is provided by traditional public schools. The board argued that public education as defined by the federal disabilities law is not separate from traditional public schools. Since the services in this case are not delivered by traditional public schools, the board claims that those services are not public education within the meaning of the federal disabilities act.

The Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the board's premise that Rhode Island law plays a role in this case.

"What constitutes public education does not vary from state to state," Judge Kermit V. Lipez wrote in the appellate court's decision. "Indeed, to allow each state to define public education would only result in 50 different interpretations of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)."

"Since the IDEA does not define the term public education, we have turned, out of necessity, to its ordinary usage as Congress would have understood it," Lipez wrote.

Rhode Island currently funds a network of community-based organizations to deliver adult education to students who have aged out of the state's public schools.

Currently, if a 21-year-old student doesn't finish high school because, for example, he was in prison, the state will give him the help needed to obtain high-school-level skills, according to the appellate court decision.

"However, if the same 21-year-old does not complete high school due to a qualifying disability, the state currently does not offer [him] ability-appropriate services to attain the same level of educational attainment," Lipez wrote.

The Board of Education argued that many of the community-based organizations are ill-equipped to provide a public education to its clients.

But the appellate court disagreed. It said nothing in the federal disabilities law, nor in its opinion, requires community organizations to provide federally mandated special-education services.

"We leave it to the parties, working with the court on remand, to decide the appropriate setting for the provision of those services," Lipez wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, 1st Circuit Court Judge Sandra L. Lynch called the majority's opinion "a serious breach of federal policy concerning local control of public school systems."

She also wrote that the decision will impose additional burdens on taxpayers and school districts. When asked about this during oral arguments, the Board of Education said that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would impose significant costs on school districts.

The federal disabilities act was meant to ensure equal opportunities for both disabled and non-disabled students from preschool through high school, Lynch wrote.

"This does not include adult education which the IDEA classifies as post-school activity ...," she wrote.

--lborg@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7823

On Twitter: @lborgprojocom

READ the 1st Circuit Court decision and dissenting opinion:

___

(c)2018 The Providence Journal (Providence, R.I.)

Visit The Providence Journal (Providence, R.I.) at www.projo.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.