Due Process and Parental Rights: Kroot v. District of Columbia (1992) When dealing with children whether they have a disability or not parents have rights that are explained in IDEA. When dealing with children who have disabilities due process and parental rights need to be assured so that the child is receiving the proper services and help. When these rights are not adhered to parents have the right to take action as we will see through the case Kroot v. District of Columbia.
In Kroot v. District of Columbia Joseph Kroot’s parents sought reimbursement from the District of Columbia school district for the cost of a private school which they sent their son to after he was not progressing in the public school system because he was not receiving the services he needed (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). Joseph’s parents had him evaluated after receiving reports f4rom his pre-kindergarten teachers and evaluators that he was not paying attention in class, had a short attention span, he had weak fine motor skill and a delay in his language development (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). The psychologist determined that Joseph not only had a delay in motor skill development but also a sensory processing shortcoming that would impede the learning process. Joseph’s parents filed a Confidential Student Services Form with DCPS (District of Columbia Public Schools) for special education services and provided DCPD with reports from educators at his previous school as well as other assessments done by other evaluators.
After completing their own assessments of Joseph the DCPS decided he did not meet the requirements for special education under IDEA. Joseph’s parents then challenged the ineligibility for special education decision made by DCPS and requested an impartial due process hearing. After the hearing was conducted on June 6, 1989 the hearing officer ruled that Joseph was ineligible for special education services. After this determination Joseph’s parents enrolled him in the Lab School of Washington and sought reimbursement for the costs associated with enrolling Joseph in this school as well as challenging the hearing officers’ decision (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). Upon entering the Lab school another evaluation was done on Joseph that determined he had the following disabilities, poor motor skills and organization, inability to write assignments effectively, linguistic confusion, spatial issues, poor application for concepts and poor auditory discerning skills (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). It was then determined that all of the information that had been presented did in fact correlate to his learning disabilities and that without proper services he would not be able to fully function in a classroom setting.
Due to the fact that Joseph had had so many evaluations there were issues between his parents and the school district. Joseph’s parents believed that he met the requirements for special education and were dissatisfied with the schools decision. His parents also felt that their input and their objections should have been included in the MDT report (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). The school felt that the parents should not have been able to have a due process hearing because there was a 7 month delay between initial eligibility and the request for a hearing as well as the fact that it was not filed within 30 days of the hearing officers’ determination (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992).
The first order of business was to determine if Joseph was indeed eligible for special education services. In order to determine whether or not Joseph was eligible the court turned to the definition stated in IDEA. Under IDEA a child with a disability is one that has mental, visual, hearing speech or language impairment or they have been diagnosed with a specific emotional or learning disability (Categories of Disability Under IDEA, 2012). After taking IDEA’s definition into consideration the court determined that Joseph was eligible for special education services due to the many evaluations he had done and that he should be classified as a student who has special needs. Where DCPS determined that Joseph was ineligible for special education services the Lab school generated an IEP with a specialized course of action based off of their evaluations of him.
The determination was made to have the hearing officer to conduct a new hearing based on the fact that the hearing officer had made mistakes in the first hearing (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). The hearing officer made many mistakes in regards to Joseph’s case. He made many errors in judgment in regards to the circumstances and as to who had the burden of proof. First he stated that the parents had the burden of proof when in fact DCPS should have had the burden (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). The hearing officer had indicated the MDT report was excluded then relied on it to make his determination as well as excluding DCPS’s evidence. Because of these things the court could not review the hearing officer’s conclusion in regards to Joseph’s eligibility for special education under IDEA.
In the new hearing review it was determined that Joseph was in fact eligible for special education services during the school year between 1989 and 1990 (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). The hearing officer determined that DCPS would pay for Joseph’s tuition at the Lab School of Washington for the school year between 1989 and 1990 (KROOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1992). The court also determined that Joseph should remain enrolled at the Lab School of Washington where the services he needed would be provided for and have his needs accommodated for.
In this case I have to agree that Joseph should be receiving special education services. There were many evaluations done that determined Joseph had a learning disability with many aspects that needed to be considered. Joseph was not going to receive those services through DCPS because their evaluation did not determine him to be disabled under IDEA though there was plenty of evidence from other psychologists and evaluations to prove otherwise. I also agree with the determination that DCPS should reimburse Josephs parents for tuition expenses because they denied him a proper public education with the services he needed to ensure his needs were being met. The parents proved through independent evaluations as well as evaluations from previous teachers and the Lab School of Washington that Joseph had a disability in many areas and they should not be penalized for seeking the services and education their child deserved.
In addition Kroot v. District of Columbia upheld the parents rights to due process by stating that the purpose of notifying parents of their rights is to provide them with enough information to protect their rights as well as their child’s and to be able to make informed decisions and decide whether a due process hearing is needed to ensure their rights (Osborne & Russo, 2007). Many parents are afraid to fight for their rights and the rights of their child; however, this is becoming less and less because of cases such as Kroot v. District of Columbia. Without IDEA and court cases such as Kroot v. District of Columbia parents would not know that there are other avenues for them to take in gaining the services and support their child needs. Parents need to know their rights and ensure that they are not being infringed on when it comes to their children’s education because they are the best advocate a child is going to have. In knowing their rights and responsibilities a parent or parents can make the difference between a quality education and one that is serving no purpose for their child.