You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Missouri School for the Blind v. Springfield R-12 School District Andrew Lewis, Parent and Natural Guardian of Katherine Lewis, a Minor Child Martha Lewis, Parent and Natural Guardian of Katherine Lewis, a Minor Child Katherine Lewis, a Minor and a Child With a Disability

Citations: 358 F.3d 992; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 3883; 1 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) 11Docket: 02-3765

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 29, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the Missouri School for the Blind (MSB) appealed a district court decision that required them to finance the education of Katherine Lewis, a deaf and blind minor, at a specialized private school. Initially, Katherine's local district could not provide the appropriate services, leading her parents to seek her placement at Perkins School for the Blind. Despite DESE's and MSB's objections, an administrative panel determined Perkins was necessary to meet Katherine's educational needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court upheld this finding and ruled that DESE must cover the costs at Perkins, minus the district's local tax effort. DESE and MSB contested this decision, arguing against the financial responsibility and the award of expert witness fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court's findings on the financial obligations but reversed the award of expert witness fees, citing that IDEA does not cover such expenses. This case underscores the responsibilities of state and local education agencies in providing for severely disabled students under IDEA.

Legal Issues Addressed

Award of Expert Witness Fees

Application: The appellate court reversed the district court's award of expert witness fees to the Lewises, indicating that IDEA does not authorize such expenses.

Reasoning: Citing the case Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, the court concluded that expert-witness fees are not included in the recoverable costs under IDEA, leading to the reversal of the district court's award of these fees.

IDEA and Free Appropriate Public Education

Application: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that states provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to disabled students. In this case, DESE and MSB were found responsible for failing to provide Katherine with FAPE, leading to her placement at Perkins.

Reasoning: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that states receiving federal funding provide disabled students with a free and appropriate education.

Reimbursement for Educational Costs

Application: The Extraordinary Cost Fund was utilized by the District to partially reimburse the costs associated with Katherine's education at Perkins, although significant expenses remained unreimbursed.

Reasoning: The Extraordinary Cost Fund, established by the Missouri state legislature through the State Board of Education, reimburses school districts for extraordinary costs related to providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Role of State Education Agencies

Application: DESE, as the state education agency, is tasked with developing and implementing individualized education programs (IEPs) when local districts are unable to provide adequate services.

Reasoning: The state education agency is mandated to develop and implement IEPs for children in public or private education settings, with federal funds supporting local education agencies in fulfilling IDEA requirements.

State vs. Local Educational Responsibility

Application: The court determined that DESE, rather than the local district, was financially responsible for Katherine's education at Perkins because the local district could not offer an appropriate program.

Reasoning: The hearing panel and district court found that no educational agency in Missouri wanted to take responsibility for educating a particular child, concluding that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) is ultimately responsible for the costs of that child's education for the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years, less the district's local tax effort.