A Look at the Court's Role for IDEA and Mental Health Needs

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

On Dec. 14, 2012, Adam Lanza killed 28 individuals, including school children and teachers, before taking his own life at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in one of the deadliest mass shootings that this country has ever witnessed. The Child Advocate of Connecticut, the state agency that was charged with investigating the incident, reported that Lanza had been suffering from mental health issues throughout his educational career but had received "minimal" supports from his various schools to address such issues. The Child Advocate concluded that this failure amounted to a "lapse" in the education system's response to Lanza's needs.

The Sandy Hook tragedy is but one illustration of the mental health epidemic that our nation is facing but has failed to adequately address. Consider the following statistics: More than one in five incarcerated individuals and approximately 70 percent of adjudicated youths suffer from mental health conditions. Furthermore, one-third of adult homelessness is attributed to mental health issues.

A rarely discussed but important contributor to our mental health crisis is our education system's failure to address the needs of students with mental health conditions. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, students with mental health disabilities have higher dropout rates and receive lower grades than any other group of students with disabilities. This failure appears to be driven, in part, by courts interpreting ourspecial education laws, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in a manner that denies these students equal access to important supports and services.

The IDEA requires school districts to identify students with disabilities, including mental health disabilities, and provide them the special education supports they need to become self-sufficient, independent adults. Relevant for children with mental health issues, special educationand related services include, among other things, counseling, behavioral interventions, social skills training, one-on-one assistance and learning support. In order to receive these services, a student must have an enumerated disability that adversely impacts his or her educational performance. But there is a growing debate within the judiciary on whether educational performance includes social, emotional and behavioral development. A number of courts to consider the issue have interpreted "educational" in this context to mean "academic." This narrow interpretation discriminates against students with mental health disabilities.

Mental health issues typically affect areas of development that are non-academic, such as forming interpersonal relationships, regulating behavior, and interacting in community settings. Needless to say, these skills are critical to becoming an independent adult-a key priority of the IDEA. As a result, the restricted approach of equating education with "academics" can lead to students with mental health conditions being denied the services they need to achieve Congress' goal of self-sufficiency.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appeared to embrace this approach in a case involving a claim for "tuition reimbursement" for the expenses of a private placement. Under the IDEA, a school district must reimburse parents for the costs of private school tuition when (1) the school district offers an inappropriate individualized education program, (2) the private placement chosen by parents is appropriate, and (3) the equities favor reimbursement. Tuition reimbursement is important because it ensures that students have access to an appropriate education when their school has failed to or simply cannot meet their needs.

In Munir v. Pottsville Area School District, No. 12-3008 (3d Cir. Jul. 25, 2013), the Third Circuit determined that tuition reimbursement is only appropriate when the primary purpose of the private placement is educational. Equating "educational" with "academic," the court stated that school districts are not financially responsible for children privately placed for "medical, social, or emotional reasons and receive only an incidental educational benefit from that placement."

The student in Munir suffered from significant mental health issues that caused him to attempt suicide multiple times and frequently miss school. In order to address these issues, and allow him to more consistently engage in his education, the student's parents enrolled him in a therapeutic placement and requested tuition reimbursement from their school district. Finding that the purpose of the placement was primarily to address the student's social and emotional needs, the court rejected the parents' request for tuition reimbursement.

In contrast to Munir, in Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit considered tuition reimbursement for a student placed in a private setting due to deficits arising from a learning, rather than mental health, disability. As in Munir, the key issue in the case was the appropriateness of the student's private placement. But, in Frank G., the court's analysis hinged on whether the student made progress at the private placement as opposed to the purpose of his placement. Because the student's academic performance improved while in the private placement, the court found it was an appropriate placement and awarded the student's parents tuition reimbursement.

Frank G. and Munir illustrate a "double standard" that has a discriminatory effect on students with mental health disabilities. Whereas the parents in Frank G. only needed to demonstrate that the student made progress at his private placement, such a showing would not have been enough for the student in Munir. In Munir, the court did not even consider the academic, social, or emotional progress made by the student. This is particularly disconcerting given that achieving emotional stability likely led to the student improving his academic performance.

Beyond being discriminatory, the court's approach in Munir is legally flawed.

First, as noted above, the IDEA's goal of fostering self-sufficient, independent adults requires a broader interpretation of "educational."

Second, teaching students social skills and how to manage their emotions and behavior is a key objective of schools. Both before and presently due to the adoption of the Common Core, schools offer classroom-based programming geared toward these areas, including lessons on feeling identification, goal setting, conflict resolution, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. Schools also provide informal social and emotional learning opportunities. School is where students learn to, inter alia, interact with their peers and authority figures, overcome adversity and collaborate on group projects. Thus, education in today's schools clearly involves much more than academics.

Finally, the text of the IDEA illustrates that Congress intended "education" to include more than academics. The IDEA specifically references "academics" in several sections, illustrating that Congress explicitly considered this term when drafting the act. Nonetheless, the drafters used "educational" rather than "academics" in the provisions of the act specifically addressing eligibility and special education services.

Given schools' institutional resources and unique position in the lives of children, they have the capacity to play an important role in addressing our mental health crisis. Moreover, the IDEA requires schools to do so. But, decisions like Munir are undermining this pursuit. Courts must do better.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source- Kevin A. Golembiewski, David J. Berney, Courts Must Do Better Regarding the IDEA and Mental Health, 251 The Legal Intelligencer 57, Mar 26 2015, at 7