Supreme Court Case May Impact School Choice and Special Education Services

Introduction to the Case

A group of Republican-led states is encouraging the Supreme Court to consider a case that could change the balance between school choice, parental rights, and special education services across the nation.

Fourteen states have submitted a brief supporting two families from Massachusetts, arguing against governmental pressure on parents to abandon private education due to difficulties in accessing educational benefits. These states suggest Massachusetts is leveraging special education services to push families towards public schools.

They assert that while states are not obliged to create or fund educational benefits, if they do, they should not press parents into choosing between the benefit and school choice.

Affected Families

Special education impacts millions of families. Over 7 million public school students receive various services like speech and occupational therapy, behavioral support, and specialized instruction. Approximately two-thirds of private schools in the U.S. enroll students with disabilities.

This Supreme Court case might dictate whether states funding such services for private school students must allow them to be delivered at private campuses instead of public or neutral locations.

Details of the Hellman Supreme Court Case

The case, Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, revolves around whether children attending private schools can obtain state-funded special education services at their school campuses.

Special education can include speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, behavioral support, and specialized academic instruction usually under a student’s individualized education plan.

The Massachusetts law guarantees these services to children in private as well as public schools. The challenge from families argues Massachusetts unlawfully forces them to choose between private education and acquiring necessary services for their children.

The Families and Their Argument

The conflict involves two families: Ariella and David Hellman, and Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison, whose children attend Jewish day schools. Massachusetts law provides special education services, but places restrictions on where these services can be delivered.

Current policy requires children in private schools to receive state-funded services at public or neutral locations, not within their schools. This setup causes loss of instructional time, travel burdens, and possible stigmatization, leading some families to forgo services.

They base their constitutional claim on Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a precedent supporting parents’ right to choose private education. Massachusetts’ policy, they argue, unjustly conditions government benefits on surrendering this choice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit acknowledged parents’ rights but upheld Massachusetts’ policy, citing the state’s constitution restriction on aid to private schools.

The families petition the Supreme Court to resolve whether the protection against penalizing constitutional rights covers parental rights from Pierce.

Republican States Supporting the Parents

West Virginia and South Carolina led the filing, joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas.

They argue this case will affect more than special education in Massachusetts. Many states have school-choice initiatives, education savings accounts, and scholarship programs allowing parents to choose the best educational fit for their children.

The states caution that the First Circuit’s decision could motivate legal challenges against such programs. They argue that states should not use educational benefits to funnel families towards public schools.

Restrictions impacting private school attendance often disproportionately affect families seeking religious schools. This collusion argues for protecting parental choice, especially for children with specialized needs.

Massachusetts’ Stance

Massachusetts emphasizes compliance with its constitution, preventing public funds aiding private schools while maintaining services availability for eligible children.

The main issue, according to the state, is the location of service delivery. Public or neutral sites are permissible, but not private school campuses.

The First Circuit supported Massachusetts, upholding the policy as a valid effort to conform to constitutional restrictions.

Opposition to Massachusetts’ Policy

Several organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, challenge Massachusetts’ reasoning, asserting adverse impacts on parental choice. They highlight historical elements of Massachusetts’ anti-aid provisions, rooted in anti-Catholic sentiment expanding to all private institutions.

Future Developments

The Supreme Court has yet to decide on hearing the case. If accepted, it could become a benchmark for assessing constitutional protections related to parental educational choice and limitations on government funding.

Newsweek editors involved in this report include Gray R. Thomas.